Preamble

The House met at half-past Two 0'clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

Oral Answers to Questions — TRADE

Third London Airport

Mr. Michael McNair-Wilson: asked the Secretary of State for Trade whether the cost of a new four-lane road access and a rail link to London/Heathrow will be included in the review of the factors relating to the need for a third London airport.

The Under-Secretary of State for Trade (Mr. Clinton Davis): The question of surface access to airports will form part of the review, but whether and to what extent new routes may be required for Heathrow, or any other airport, and at what cost must await the outcome of the review.

Mr. McNair-Wilson: Is the Minister aware that the M4 access to Heathrow

is already accepted by the Department of the Environment to be congested, if not saturated? Clearly, therefore, the road needs to be broadened, if not a new access provided. Will the Minister publish all the factors which will be included in the review for the third London airport?

Mr. Davis: The question of publication will be dealt with in due course and there will be full publication. We are aware of the congestion, and of course that is a factor which will be taken into account.

Mr. Lipton: Will my hon. Friend let us know the latest position on the extension of the Piccadilly Line from Hounslow West to Heathrow, which would do much to relieve some of the traffic congestion?

Mr. Davis: The new underground railway link is being constructed, and the question of a surface rail link is also being considered.

Mr. Heseltine: The House wants to know the factors which are being taken into account in the review. Will the Minister publish them now so that people may see what information will be made available before a decision is taken on the third London airport?

Mr. Davis: We have already dealt with this matter a great deal. It is under general consideration, but we shall give


further thought to the point the hon. Member has made.

Pilotage

Mr. Stephen Ross: asked the Secretary of State for Trade whether he will introduce legislation to make illegal the practice of shipping companies which retain the services of, and make additional payments to, retained pilots of their own choice.

Mr. Clinton Davis: The system of "choice pilotage" has for long been in operation in many pilotage districts and I have no proposals to introduce such legislation.

Mr. Ross: Admiralty counsel and other learned lawyers consider that the retained pilot system is an offence under existing legislation. Is the Minister aware that it has been largely abolished by many other countries? The United Kingdom Pilots Association does not consider the practice to be desirable and has made strong recommendations that it should be ended immediately.

Mr. Davis: The question of its illegality is a matter which could be tested in the courts by means of a private prosecution. The system in other countries is subject to varying factors within individual countries and I cannot comment further in that respect. There is a difference of opinion among United Kingdom pilots. We are aware of that situation. As for the hon. Member's constituency interest, I am advised that only a minority of pilots are taking an objection.

Mr. Nicholas Edwards: That may be true, but is the Minister aware that those objections are widely held among pilots? As the representative of one of the country's largest ports, I know that there are strong objections to the practice among the pilots there.

Mr. Davis: I can only repeat that a minority interest has made these objections. The information before my Department does not suggest that the practice is objected to by the majority.

Motor Component Imports

Mr. Rooker: asked the Secretary of State for Trade what was the value of

imported motor components in the last year for which figures are available.

The Under-Secretary of State for Trade (Mr. Eric Deakins): £124 million in 1973.

Mr. Rooker: I thank my hon. Friend for that reply. Is he aware that British component manufacturers such as Lucas Industries are contributing to this high figure because of their vast increase in investment in the Common Market instead of in the United Kingdom in recent years?

Mr. Deakins: I am well aware that there has been a tremendous increase in investment in Common Market countries in the last few years. However, the argument for restricting United Kingdom investment abroad is not made out to the satisfaction of my right hon. and hon. Friends and myself. While it is possible that the establishment of United Kingdom factories overseas could lead to the import of items which could be produced here, the consideration is balanced so far by investment in the United Kingdom.

Mr. Geoffrey Finsherg: Does the Minister agree that if the component manufacturers had had fewer strikes in the past few years there would have been less need to import products from other countries?

Mr. Deakins: I do not believe that this country's industrial relations record is any worse than that of any of our major overseas competitors.

South Africa

Mr. Biffen: asked the Secretary of State for Trade what has been the value and volume of trade with South Africa over the latest available 12-month period; and what are the prospects for the maintenance and improvement of this trade.

Mr. Leslie Huckfield: asked the Secretary of State for Trade whether he will make a statement on the amount of trade presently conducted with South Africa ; and what prospects he envisages for its future.

The Secretary of State for Trade and President of the Board of Trade (Mr. Peter Shore): United Kingdom imports from South Africa in 1973 were £400 million and exports £374 million. Volume


figures by country are not compiled. There are good opportunities for exporters, subject of course to the ban on military goods.

Mr. Biffen: In view of the undoubted magnitude of this trade, can the right hon. Gentleman tell us whether he believes that it enhances or diminishes the impact of apartheid?

Mr. Shore: That is a difficult question to answer, in all fairness and seriousness. Some people undoubtedly take the view that the pressure on South Africa for change, which hon. Members on both sides would like to see, might be enhanced by adopting a policy of lesser trade with South Africa, but others take the view that on the whole one of the advantages of continuing trade with South Africa is that it will help the whole population as well as simply those who are clearly in a powerful economic position there. My own view is that, apart from military supplies, we should continue with the policy of trading in ordinary civilian goods.

Mr. Anthony Grant: Will the Minister pay an early ministerial visit to South Africa and thereby give encouragement to our business men who are contributing so much to our balance of payments?

Mr. Shore: I have no present plans to do so.

European Economic Community

Mr. Marten: asked the Secretary of State for Trade what is the balance of trade deficit with the Common Market since Great Britain joined.

Mr. Body: asked the Secretary of State for Trade if he will make a statement about the present balance of trade deficit with the rest of the EEC.

Mr. Shore: In 1973 our visible trade deficit with the EEC was £1,119 million.

Mr. Marten: While I do not wish to rub salt into the festering wound of the Common Market, may I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether it is possible to identify invisibles in our trade with the Cmmon Market? It seems to me that without their being brought into account in our trading with the Common Market the figures do not present a very true picture.

The last time invisibles were detailed, there was a deficit with the Common Market.

Mr. Shore: An area breakdown of our invisible trade with the EEC is not yet available, so I am advised. I assume, however, that if invisibles are interpreted broadly they will have to take into account the contribution we make to the EEC budget. That is a large and growing deficit factor.

Mr. George Lawson: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that British export trade with Common Market countries is twice as much as our export trade with the whole of the Commonwealth? Will he be careful, in his zeal for renegotiation with the Common Market countries of terms for our continued membership, that we do not irreparably damage such an important part of our trade?

Mr. Shore: I assure my hon. Friend that, regardless of the final relationship between Britain and the Community, I shall always wish us to have a growing and sensible trade access and relationship with the Common Market countries. I ask my hon. Friend not to minimise the still very substantial importance to us of our traditional Commonwealth trade.

Luton Airport

Mr. Allason: asked the Secretary of State for Trade if he will now designate Luton airport under the Civil Aviation Act 1971, in view of the excessive volume of flights both by day and night.

Mr. Ian Stewart: asked the Secretary of State for Trade if he will take powers to control the volume of air traffic using Luton by designating the airport under the Civil Aviation Act 1971.

Mr. Clinton Davis: As I said on 1st April in reply to a similar question by the right hon. Member for Welwyn and Hatfield (Lord Balniel), I see no justification for designation at present.—[Vol. 871, c. 287.]

Mr. Allason: Has the Minister studied the report of the inquiry on Luton airport in 1972, when the inspector found that the volume of traffic in 1971 was intolerable? The traffic is now so much greater that, unless designation takes place, as it continues to grow it will be more and more intolerable.

Mr. Davis: The hon. Gentleman seems to think that designation in itself will solve the problem of noise. That simply will not happen. My Department constantly confers and considers the situation with the Luton authorities. I have no reason to believe that they have not undertaken their responsibilities properly in this respect.

Mr. Stewart: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that Hertfordshire County Council has withdrawn its representatives from the Luton Airport Consultative Committee because Luton Corporation does not consult?

Mr. Davis: My information is that that is not so. What the Hertfordshire County Council decides to do is entirely a matter for that council.

Mr. Heseltine: Is the Minister considering' the expansion of Luton beyond the present level as an alternative to development at Maplin?

Mr. Davis: That is a matter which falls within the scope of the review.

Mr. Heseltine: Is it in the review?

Mr. Davis: It is a matter which falls within the scope of the review. I have already said, in an answer to an earlier Question which the hon. Gentleman apparently chose not to hear, what the Government's position is.

Commodity Markets

Mr. Tim Renton: asked the Secretary of State for Trade if he will make a statement on the Government's consideration of whether to establish a Royal Commission to examine the commodity markets.

Mr. Shore: I have nothing to add to what my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Trade told the hon. Member for Bedford (Mr. Skeet) on 28th March.—[Vol. 871, c. 209–10.

Mr. Renton: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for that somewhat indecisive reply; but may I urge on him the need to make up his mind in this connection? While he is doing so, will he bear in mind that the commodity markets are primarily a reflection of the international value of commodities at any given time? Will he consider the benefit to Britain of that

international value being decided in markets in London in sterling, which in 1972 represented about £45 million in invisible earnings, and that there are rival markets in Paris and Hamburg, for example, which are ready to take over from London if given the opportunity?

Mr. Shore: I note what the hon. Gentleman says, but he should not exclude from his consideration of the benefits of having international commodity markets in London that there has also been a great deal of unwelcome and damaging commodity speculation. I have nothing to add on this matter to what my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said in answer to a Question some time ago.

Mr. Dalyell: What can be done about the current practice of the commodity markets of building an expected rate of inflation into their prices, thereby helping to bring about that very inflation?

Mr. Shore: My hon. Friend makes a serious point. That is one of the reasons why I believe that we must give careful thought to a further inquiry.

Mr. Skeet: I appreciate that the Government are very concerned about issues of speculation. Does the Secretary of State agree that foreign Governments are primarily responsible for this in oil, phosphates and copper? How does the right hon. Gentleman propose to find, by any Royal Commission, a sanction which will bring foreign Governments to heel?

Mr. Shore: The benefit of an inquiry would be, first, to help ascertain precisely where the main forces for speculation exist. Some will undoubtedly exist in this country, and some abroad. As my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister made clear when he answered a Question on the subject originally, however, an inquiry will of course consider both the international and the national aspects of commodity speculation.

Japan

Mr. Carter: asked the Secretary of State for Trade if he is satisfied with current trading arrangements with Japan.

Mr. Deakins: British exports to Japan continue to expand rapidly, and I look forward to further balanced growth in our trade with this important market.

Mr. Carter: Does my hon. Friend agree that we stand absolutely no chance of balancing our trading books with Japan while the Japanese offer all kinds of obstacles to British trade with Japan? Will he tell the Japanese that unless those obstacles are removed quickly we shall retaliate against them and put obstacles in the way of Japanese goods coming to this country?

Mr. Deakins: There has been substantial liberalisation in Japan with regard to imports over the past few years. With a few exceptions—computers, leather and footwear—there are now no quantitative restrictions on products of interest to British exporters. The average level of tariffs in Japan is about equivalent to that of the common external tariff in Europe. With a few exceptions, even controls on foreign investment have been removed. We shall continue to press for the removal of the few remaining restrictions. I no longer regard them as a barrier to the expansion of two-way trade.

Mr. Peter Walker: Does the Minister agree, and will he inform his hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Mr. Carter), that taking invisibles and visibles together we have a surplus in our trade with Japan? Does he agree that the enormous increase in our exports to Japan during the past year—I believe of at least 60 per cent.—was a tribute to the officials of the Department of Trade and Industry, whose lack of influence on trade the Secretary of State mentioned only a week ago?

Mr. Deakins: I confirm the right hon. Gentleman's point. We now enjoy a surplus on our total trade with Japan, by virtue of invisibles, and last year exports went up by a record 60 per cent. compared with a 41 per cent. increase in imports into this country. I and the Department regard Japan as one of the major growth markets of the world to which we are devoting a great deal of time and attention.

Common External Tariff

Mr. Moate: asked the Secretary of State for Trade if it is the policy of Her Majesty's Government to work for the ultimate elimination of the common external tariff of the EEC on industrial

goods, in the interests of the further liberalisation of world trade.

Mr. Shore: Yes, Sir. But the immediate task is to work for as large a reciprocal reduction as proves practicable in the current negotiations.

Mr. Moate: Does the right hon. Gentleman recall that during the discussions for the preparation of the GATT negotiating position the French Government insisted that for political purposes the common external tariff should not be allowed to fall too far? Do the Government reject this inward-looking attitude and do they expect ultimately to see the elimination of the external tariff?

Mr. Shore: I speak for this Government and not the French Government vis-á-vis the future of the common external tariff. The answer to the hon. Gentleman's question is "Yes, we do wish to see the elimination of the tariff in the long term." We now have to consider what is immediately practicable in the forthcoming multilateral talks which we hope will soon be under way.

Mr. William Hamilton: Is it my right hon. Friend's long-term aim to stay in the Market or to get out of it?

Mr. Shore: That will depend not only on the results of the renegotiations but, as my hon. Friend well knows, on the decision of his fellow countrymen.

DC10 Accident Inquiry (Report)

Mr. Whitehead: asked the Secretary of State for Trade when he expects to receive the report of the inquiry into the recent crash of the Turkish Airlines DC10 near Paris.

Mr. Shore: The French authorities investigating the accident have indicated that they expect to produce the report within about 10 to 12 months from now.

Mr. Whitehead: Since it will be some time before the report is published, may I ask my right hon. Friend to consider—in view of the alarming news coming out of Washington about the links between an aircraft manufacturer and appointees of the Nixon Government—the setting up of a Select Committee of this House to examine the whole question of airworthiness certification and safety procedures for foreign aircraft?

Mr. Shore: I will give thought to that suggestion. I put to my hon. Friend the point that the major sources of information on this must reside in the country where the original accident took place and with the manufacturers. I believe that we shall probably get all the information we need, not only from the reports of the Federal Aviation Authority and other authorities in the United States but also as a result of the special hearings now taking place.

Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: Since the action taken prior to the accident by the Federal Aviation Agency was advisory rather than mandatory, can the right hon. Gentleman tell us whether the Civil Aviation Authority in Britain has taken any mandatory action in the interim period until the full report of the accident inquiry is available?

Mr. Shore: My information is that the CAA insisted, at a time when the FAA was still making a voluntary recommendation that the DCl0s bought by the one firm in Britain which possesses them should have embodied within the doors all the changes advised by the FAA.

Heathrow (Night Flying)

Mr. Jessel: asked the Secretary of State for Trade if he will ban all jet take-offs from Heathrow airport by night.

Mr. Clinton Davis: Night jet departures from Heathrow in the summer months from April to October are already severely restricted. A total ban would pose serious problems but the possibility of applying restrictions in the winter months is being considered.

Mr. Jessel: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that it is the summer months when people object most because that is when they have most windows open at night? Is he aware that it is intolerable that tens of thousands, perhaps hundreds of thousands, of people are disturbed at night so that a few hundred people can derive the benefit of cheap night fares? Is he aware that my constituents warmly welcome the progress made by the last Government in cutting by five-sixths the number of night flights, from 1,638— [HON. MEMBERS: "Reading."] I am only reading the figures. The last Government cut the number of night flights from 1,638 in the summer months of

1971 to 261 in the summer season of 1973. Cannot the present Government try to make further progress in the same direction?

Mr. Davis: This is a continuing process, as the hon. Gentleman will realise. It does not help his case when he tries to make rather small party points. The take-offs are permitted at present only in exceptional circumstances. The hon. Gentleman is right in saying that last summer the number was reduced to 265. There are real difficulties in imposing a total ban, as he knows. He is well aware of the exceptional circumstances which cause these night flights.

Mr. Molloy: Is my hon. Friend aware that, contrary to what the hon. Member for Twickenham (Mr. Jessel) has said, the volume of complaints about planes leaving and arriving at Heathrow has increased considerably in the past 12 months? Can he look into the reasons for this? Will he also consider having discussions with the local authorities in the area to see what help they can give, together with him, in trying to alleviate the problems of certain sectors of the community who are grievously affected by this noise?

Mr. Davis: The matter is under constant review. I have decided to confer not only with the local authorities concerned—this is an on-going process—but with the London Boroughs Association, which has a real interest.

Mr. Heseltine: Does not the Minister realise that a large number of people living in West London will be greatly dismayed by the way he treats the question of aircraft noise? Will he now tell the House why he is not prepared to let hon. Members know details of the reviews he is carrying out of Maplin, upon which the only possible method of alleviating noise in West London depends, when we are told by other members of the Government that it is necessary to give all possible information for a full discussion before decisions are made?

Mr. Davis: There are none so deaf as those who will not hear. When the hon. Gentleman suggests that anything I have said this afternoon has dismayed people, he should realise that I have in no way departed from his policy in dealing with these matters. As I understand


the position, he, too, consulted. I propose that consultation shall be an on-going process throughout.

Mr. Molloy: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Because of my hon. Friend's reasoned response I have decided not to raise this matter on the Adjournment.

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Member knows that that is a waste of time, which will be remembered against him.

Import Controls

Mr. Ronald Atkins: asked the Secretary of State for Trade if he will consider the possible use of temporary and selective import controls as a means of reducing the balance of payments deficit.

Mr. Shore: I would refer my hon. Friend to the statement made by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer in his Budget speech.—[Vol. 871, c. 277.]

Mr. Atkins: Is my right hon. Friend aware that import controls have been used in other countries whose balance of trade deficits have not been as bad as ours?

Mr. Shore: I am aware of the occasions on which import restrictions have been used in the past.

Commonwealth Trade Ministers

Mrs. Renée Short: asked the Secretary of State for Trade when he intends to meet the Ministers of overseas trade of the Commonwealth countries.

Mr. Shore: I have already had a very useful meeting with the New Zealand Minister of Overseas Trade and look forward to meeting the Canadian Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce in London this week. I hope to meet other Commonwealth Trade Ministers in the not very distant future.

Mrs. Short: Is my right hon. Friend aware that most people in this country are deeply concerned about the decline in our trade with our former Commonwealth partners—just as concerned as they are over the staggering deficit we have with the Common Market countries? Will he bear in mind that we would like to see an improvement in our trade with the Commonwealth

countries, particularly New Zealand and Australia, for which we are still the largest market for dairy products and meat?

Mr. Shore: I wholly concur in my hon. Friend's sentiments, and I shall be doing my best to improve our trade with Commonwealth countries in the years ahead.

Mr. Body: When the right hon. Gentleman has his meeting with the Ministers, will he make plain the Government's view about taxes on food imported from the Commonwealth, particularly on the kind of foodstuffs which we are told are now scarce?

Mr. Shore: Yes, Sir. If they are not already informed, I shall ensure that they realise just how critical we are of the necessity of imposing taxes on imported food from traditional Commonwealth suppliers.

Mr. Baker: In reply to this and other Questions the right hon. Gentleman has said that one of the prime objectives of the Government is increased exports, and that meets with the approval of both sides of the House. Will he remind the House, because it may have escaped our attention, what specific proposals to increase exports were contained in the Budget?

Mr. Shore: That question might—

Mr. Speaker: Order. How that supplementary question can possibly arise out of Question No. 16 I do not know.

Airports Policy

Mr. Adley: asked the Secretary of State for Trade if he will ensure that no final decision on any new airport in South-East England is reached until the Civil Aviation Authority has completed its current studies on and search for a national airports plan.

Mr. Shore: The Civil Aviation Authority is participating in the review which I announced on 21st March. The authority's regional studies are well advanced and the work on them will be available in the review.—[Vol. 870, c. 1334–40.]

Mr. Adley: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that it never made sense,


and still does not, to pre-empt a decision about one particular airport—particularly as it is the biggest decision likely to be taken for generations in this context—until the search for a national airports policy is completed? Will the Government insist that regional policy plays an important part in this search?

Mr. Shore: I can certainly give the latter assurance, but it is odd for the hon. Gentleman to rebuke me for a policy which was precisely the one followed by the last Government, which he supported.

Mr. Alexander Fletcher: Will the study include the possibility of a central Scotland airport?

Mr. Shore: It will consider all airports which serve the regions and the nations outside the south-east of England.

Glasgow Newspapers

Mr. Dalyell: asked the Secretary of State for Trade if he will make a statement on his discussions with Mr. Jocelyn Stevens, managing director of Beaver-brook Newspapers, and Sir Hugh Fraser on the future of the Glasgow Evening Citizen and the Scottish Daily Express.

Mr. Shore: I made a full statement to the House on 27th March.—[Vol. 871, c. 467–9.]

Mr. Dalyell: Is the invitation given by my constituent, Mr. Alistair Mackie, father of the chapel, for departmental participation in the meeting on Wednesday morning between employees and representatives of Scottish industry likely to be accepted?

Mr. Shore: I was not aware of this meeting until a short time ago. My regional director in Scotland is in continuing touch with the action committee there.

Mr. Teddy Taylor: Would the right hon. Gentleman be prepared to support or co-operate in the feasibility study which the redundant staff have asked for?

Mr. Shore: As I told representatives of the action committee when they came to see me, we are prepared to consider seriously and sympathetically any proposals they put forward. That obviously would also cover a serious

proposal for a feasibility study, in which we would be prepared to help if we could.

Mr. Hugh D. Brown: Is my right hon. Friend aware that a specific request has been in the hands of the Government for a week and that it would be irresponsible to have an official at the meeting on Wednesday unless there is something to announce by that time?

Mr. Shore: I will take account of that point and I will see to it that we are in a position to make a proper response then.

Charter Flights (Fuel Supplies)

Mr. McCrindle: asked the Secretary of State for Trade what representations he has received from tour operators with regard to fuel supplies for charter flights.

Mr. Clinton Davis: Since the announcement on 21st March 1974 of the suspension of the allocation scheme for aviation jet fuel, no representations have been received from tour operators about fuel supplies.

Mr. McCrindle: Is the hon. Gentleman satisfied that, in the light of the fuel supply position, there is no reason for the public to expect that any holidays booked now will not be honoured? In view of the difficulties which the travel trade has been passing through since the fuel problems emerged, will he encourage people to book now?

Mr. Davis: There is no evidence with which I have been presented to suggest that that allegation is likely to bear fruit. If the hon. Gentleman has any specific complaints to make, I am sure he will draw them to my attention.

Mr. Wellbeloved: Will my hon. Friend refrain from encouraging people to book with holiday tour companies until the Government are satisfied that these companies are printing the truth in their brochures?

Mr. Davis: That is not a matter for me.

Company Law

Mr. Baker: asked the Secretary of State for Trade when he expects to be in a position to announce his proposals for the reform of company law.

Mr. Clinton Davis: The issues involved in the reform of company law require thorough consideration and we are not yet in a position to say when our examination of them will be completed.

Mr. Baker: The Conservative Government's Companies Bill dealt with the specific abuses of insider dealing, late filing of company accounts and the warehousing of shares before a takeover. These abuses will not go away. What will the Government do about them?

Mr. Davis: We were not satisfied that those provisions dealt appropriately with the situation. There were other provisions in the Bill which had our support, but one must look at it as a whole. We are considering whether administrative reforms—affecting, for example, Companies House—should be separated from the general principles relating to the reform of company law as a whole. As I have said previously, we take the view that the framework of the Conservatives' Bill was far too narrow and contained rather a lot of window dressing.

Mr. Redmond: When the Government produce a Companies Bill, will they remember that small private companies are different animals from big corporations, and legislate accordingly so that they are not penalised?

Mr. Davis: We shall consider these matters very carefully.

Mr. Anthony Grant: Does the hon. Gentleman recall that, on the Second Reading of the Companies Bill in the last Parliament, the present Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster said that it was the Labour Party's view that there should be a Royal Commission to look into company law reform? When is that commission to be set up? Was that a pledge or a lightly given promise?

Mr. Davis: My right hon. Friend was putting forward a suggestion. We do not consider, as at present advised, that a Royal Commission is necessary, but the Department is considering the entirety of company law including the provisions contained in the Conservative Government's Bill and our view as to the widening of the total scope of company law so that workers' interests and individual interests are properly considered.

Namibia

Mr. Hooley: asked the Secretary of State for Trade what was the value of United Kingdom imports from Namibia in 1973, and the nature of the materials or goods imported.

Mr. Deakins: Published figures show that imports totalled £33 million ; the main items were fur skins, meat, fish, fish oil, fish meal and lead.

Mr. Hooley: I thank my hon. Friend for those figures. Is he aware that I was under the impression that uranium was also an import from that part of the world? Will he assure me that his list is complete? Does he agree that while Namibia is controlled by South Africa, the removal of any resources from that country by way of imports represents the plundering of the resources of the native people of that country which should not be allowed to continue until the territory is under the control of the United Nations?

Mr. Deakins: In reply to the first part of the supplementary question, we do not at present import any uranium from Namibia. The list I gave was complete and correct. In reply to the second part, we import mineral resources from many parts of the world. If my hon. Friend takes that view about Namibia, he may equally take it about a large number of other areas of the developing world, where it might be said that by taking minerals from them rich countries are exploiting natural resources which should belong to the people concerned.

Merchant Navy Officers

Mr. Cormack: asked the Secretary of State for Trade whether he is satisfied that enough young men are volunteering for training as officers in the Merchant Navy ; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Clinton Davis: No, Sir. As in other maritime countries, there has been a shortage of suitably qualified Merchant Navy officers for some years. The industry is at present engaged in a recruitment campaign which is having some success.

Mr. Cormack: I thank the hon. Gentleman for that reply, but does he not agree that this is a serious state of affairs? Is


it not regrettable and also surprising that at a time like this HMS "Conway", which for 100 years has trained officers for the Merchant Navy, should be under threat of death? I appreciate that the Minister may not be able to give a full answer this afternoon, but will he look at this matter carefully within the next few weeks?

Mr. Davis: It is true that the shortage of young men to train as officers is a matter of concern. The British Shipping Federation and other interested bodies are taking this properly into account. As I said in my answer, this is not a matter which affects this nation alone; it is a worldwide problem. HMS "Conway" recently provided only 20 cadets a year for the Merchant Navy. Training in the Merchant Navy can now be provided more readily elsewhere. Questions about the closure of HMS "Conway" are in any event for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science.

London and County Securities Group Ltd.

Mr. Skinner: asked the Secretary of State for Trade if he has received the report of the investigation into the affairs of London and Counties Securities Ltd. ; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Shore: I have not received the report of the inspectors appointed under Section 165 of the Companies Act 1948 to investigate the affairs of London and County Securities Group Ltd. I am not at present in a position to make a statement.

Mr. Skinner: Will my right hon. Friend ensure that the Department's inspectors do an absolutely thorough job on the affairs of the company, especially in the period after 31st August 1973, when one of the company's auditors resigned mysteriously, and during the period when the Leader of the Liberal Party, as one of the co-directors, was touting for investors' money by opening banks in supermarkets and offering high rates of interest to pensioners who were gullible enough to assume that because the Leader of the Liberal Party was opening the banks the company had a lot of credibility when in fact it was in the financial gutter?

Mr. Shore: I am sure that the report of the study by the inspectors will be a thorough one. The accounting inspector —who, I am told, has 24 members on his staff—is carrying out a wide-ranging inquiry. This is a complex matter and no fewer than 20 subsidiary companies are involved.

South Africa, Chile and Iron Curtain Countries

Mr. Anthony Grant: asked the Secretary of State for Trade what is his policy towards trade with South Africa, Chile and Iron Curtain countries, respectively.

Mr. Shore: Apart from military supplies it is the Government's policy to encourage British exports to these and other countries.

Mr. Grant: Will the Minister confirm that his future policy will be dictated by Britain's overall trading interests and not by minor party political considerations?

Mr. Shore: The hon. Gentleman should not minimise the important political issues involved, particularly in the supply of arms. That is why I deliberately began my answer by putting that on one side. That apart, it is in the general interests of the country—and of all other countries—to encourage the maximum amount of trade on equitable terms between us.

Mr. Ronald Atkins: Will my right hon. Friend make it clear, because it needs to be emphasised, that we do not export arms to countries behind the Iron Curtain?

Mr. Shore: Yes, it has long been the established policy that there should be very strict control on the supply of arms to countries in Eastern Europe.

Mr. Rifkind: Are there any objective criteria for determining to which countries arms will be sold? If so, what are those criteria?

Mr. Shore: This has to be decided, and has been decided by successive Governments, very much on a case-to-case basis.

Mr. Hooley: Is my right hon. Friend aware that deliberate encouragement of trade between South Africa and the United Kingdom may seriously prejudice the trading interests of the United Kingdom with the rest of Africa?

Mr. Shore: That is among the factors that have to be borne in mind. I do not believe that the present volume of our trade with South Africa is having any deleterious effect on our prospects of trade with African countries to the north.

Mr. Berry: When does the right hon. Gentleman intend to visit these countries, and in which order?

Mr. Shore: I refer the hon. Gentleman to my previously announced plans. I am visiting Canada and the United States in the near future, and I hope to visit Australia and New Zealand thereafter. Beyond that, whether I can get away will depend greatly on how well the Opposition behave in the House.

Shetland Knitwear

Mr. Grimond: asked the Secretary of State for Trade if he will take steps to strengthen the appropriate international agreements in order to protect the name "Shetland" in foreign knitwear markets.

Mr. Clinton Davis: I think that the provisions of existing international agreement on fair trading are adequate. These depend for their enforcement upon domestic legislation in member countries, and the onus is on complainants to establish that a description is being misused. It would be impracticable to remove this onus in respect of any particular name, but if the right hon. Gentleman has any specific suggestions to make I will certainly consider them.

Mr. Grimond: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that it is extremely difficult for a small industry to keep track of all infringements of the agreements? Will he give an undertaking that the Department will resist all the attempts which we believe are being made to deprive the word "Shetland" of any territorial significance?

Mr. Davis: I understand that it is extremely difficult for a small industry to keep track of infringements, but the right hon. Gentleman is asking the Department to assume a great responsibility. There is real difficulty in determining exactly what is a Shetland product. I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman would have no difficulty in making that

determination, but I am advised that it is a problem in world trade.

Oral Answers to Questions — ENERGY

Oil Prices

Mr. Biggs-Davison: asked the Secretary of State for Energy what representations he has received from representatives of, and individuals concerned with, industries adversely affected by the increase of fuel oil prices.

The Under-Secretary of State for Energy (Mr. Gavin Strang): There have been few recently but earlier this year my Department received representations from and on behalf of various industries and companies including horticulture, bricks and building materials, glass products and light engineering. Oil price increases are scrutinised by the Price Commission, which I understand has also been approached by consumers affected.

Mr. Biggs-Davison: Is the Minister aware that I have not had a reply to my telegram on behalf of the Lea Valley Growers and the glasshouse industry generally? What helpful action will the Government take before these growers are ruined?

Mr. Strang: The Government recognise that this is a serious matter. It is a specific industry and it is thus the responsibility of my right hon. Friend the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, who is now looking urgently at this matter.

Mr. Skeet: As there is a considerable difference between the price of fuel oil and coal, will the Minister recommend to the Chancellor of the Exchequer the removal of the tax on fuel oil?

Mr. Strang: As the hon. Gentleman knows, that is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer. The hon. Gentleman has made an important observation on the relative cheapness of coal compared with oil at the present time.

Electricity and Gas Prices

Mr. Teddy Taylor: asked the Secretary of State for Energy if he will make a statement on the future price levels for electricity and gas.

The Under-Secretary of State for Energy (Mr. Alex Eadie): I have nothing to add to my right hon. Friend's Budget Statement concerning electricity and gas prices.

Mr. Taylor: Has the Minister seen the astonishing figures in the regional survey published last Friday which show the average fuel costs of the average Scottish householder as 7½ per cent. more than the national average and 20 per cent. more than the Midlands average? In view of the widening differential between Scottish coal, electricity and gas prices and the national figures, will the Minister seriously consider the possibility of a national price for the products of nationalised industries?

Mr. Eadie: The Government look seriously at any proposition presented by Opposition Members, but the strictures made by the hon. Gentleman would have had greater credibility if while the Conservatives were in power he had managed to put his arguments to his right hon. Friends.

Mr. Adley: Has the Minister any idea of the hardship that will be caused to old people living alone by the forthcoming increase in electricity prices? Is he also aware that these are the same people who are being hurt by the Labour Government's juggling about with the rate rebates? Will he have discussions with his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment to see whether the people to whom I refer can receive some form of rebated assistance towards electricity charges or rates, or both?

Mr. Eadie: If the hon. Gentleman has any proposition to put to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment, I suggest that he tables a Question on that item. In regard to his point about the suffering of elderly people, my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer sought to deal with that matter in his Budget Statement when he announced a substantial increase in pensions.

Waste Heat

Mr. Rost: asked the Secretary of State for Energy if he will give appropriate general directions to the Central Electricity Generating Board to improve the efficiency of fuel conversion on existing

and new power stations by applying energy now wasted to district heating and other useful purposes.

Mr. Eadie: The CEGB already has statutory duties under Section 50 of the Electricity Act 1947, as amended by the Electricity Act 1957, and under Section 2(5) of the latter Act, which bear directly on the efficiency and economy of its operations and on the use of waste heat.

Mr. Rost: Does not the Minister agree that that is a most unsatisfactory answer, because it is simply an excuse for saying that nothing is being done to improve the efficiency of our electricity industry? Does he not know that every house and building in the country could be heated from waste products which at present are being poured into rivers or which go up chimneys?

Mr. Eadie: I do not accept the introductory part of the hon. Gentleman's question. He has asked the question many times, and the answer is that this subject is the statutory responsibility of the CEGB. As for the question of waste heat, I can assure the hon. Gentleman that the CEGB is always looking into this matter and takes opinions and views on the subject from all over the world.

North Sea Oil Equipment

Mr. William Hamilton: asked the Secretary of State for Energy when he will announce plans for ensuring greater participation of British firms on the production of equipment for North Sea oil development.

Mr.Strang: As my right hon. Friend announced on 2nd April, we are planning a substantial expansion of the efforts of the Offshore Supplies Office and we intend to establish the headquarters of the Offshore Supplies Office in Glasgow with representatives in other parts of the country and in London.

Mr. Hamilton: Can my hon. Friend say to what extent British firms are inhibited by shortage of steel and trained personnel? In respect of the latter point, will he consider the possibility of establishing in Glenrothes, Fife, the Petroleum Industry Training Board?

Mr. Strang: My hon. Friend has raised a number of very important matters, all of which I am currently


examining. With regard to the steel situation, on Friday I visited two of the most important platform fabrication yards in the United Kingdom, namely, Brown and Root at Nigg Bay and McAlpine at Ardyne Point, and I took the opportunity to discuss with them the very important matter mentioned by my hon. Friend. On the question of training, I am sure my hon. Friend is as delighted as I am that we are establishing a drilling technology centre in Scotland. I have taken note of the other points he made.

Mr. MacArthur: Is the Minister aware that the extent of British participation in this great development will depend largely on Government policy towards the oil industry and its North Sea operations? Is he aware that he was reported as declaring that the Government propose to seize 51 per cent. of that oil industry? Is that still his view, has he modified it, or what are the Government's latest intentions?

Mr. Strang: I cannot hold myself responsible for Press reports, particularly in some of the newspapers that circulate in the hon. Gentleman's area. I can however, assure him that the Government are proceeding with their plans for the oil industry in the North Sea as announced in the Queen's Speech. We shall be bringing them forward shortly, and we shall stick to our commitments with regard to public ownership, participation and control.

Nuclear Generators

Mr. Emery: asked the Secretary of State for Energy whether he can now make a statement about the Government's decision on the next generation of nuclear generators.

Mr. Eadie: My right hon. Friend intends to make a statement as soon as possible, but not before the House has had an opportunity to debate the issues.

Mr. Emery: Does the hon. Gentleman recall that a number of his Labour colleagues have expressed a wish that this decision should be reached with the greatest speed? I welcome the fact that there is to be a debate on this subject, but will he assure the House that if there is any further delay he and his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will make a decision about the interim

situation, even if they cannot make up their minds about what they want to do in the final analysis?

Mr. Eadie: I appreciate that the hon. Gentleman concedes the fact that the House of Commons should have an opportunity to debate this issue. I assure him that the Government appreciate the need for decisions, but it is important to get those decisions right. Therefore, the Government must weigh carefully all relevant factors on this complex issue.

Mr. Leadbitter: Will my hon. Friend take into account the recommendations made on this sensitive matter by the Select Committee on Science and Technology? Will he give an assurance that no decision will be taken by the Government on any proposal for a light-water reactor until the House has had an opportunity to debate the subject?

Mr. Eadie: I have pleasure in giving my hon. Friend that assurance. This has already been stated by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Energy, and no decision has been taken. The House of Commons will have the opportunity to debate the issue.

Mr. Patrick Jenkin: Will the Minister make sure that the House has an up-to-date forecast of the demand for electricity from the CEGB before we debate the subject? Does he agree that it will be exceedingly difficult to debate a programme involving a choice of reactor without our having the information about electricity demand?

Mr. Eadie: I will convey that view to my right hon. Friend.

Mr. Dalyell: What is happening in the discussions with the Canadians on the SGHW Candu reactors?

Mr. Eadie: Discussions are taking place all the time. As I have told the House on other occasions, no decisions of any description have been taken.

Oil-related Employment

Mr. Gordon Wilson: asked the Secretary of State for Energy if he will outline his plans for ensuring that Dundee will receive a greater number of oil related jobs from the development of Scotland's offshore oil resources.

Mr. Strang: My Department acknowledges the efforts being made by local authority and development bodies in Dundee to provide facilities for offshore oil-related activities. The Offshore Supplies Office has drawn the attention of potential oil-related developers to Dundee and will continue to do so.

Mr. Wilson: In view of the interest expressed by the hon. Gentleman, may I ask whether he is aware that when an itinerary for editors of oil journals was drawn up last week Tayside was left out and was included only after protests? Since only 250 jobs or so will come to Dundee out of the development of the offshore oil industry, what further plans has the right hon. Gentleman to increase the proportion of jobs?

Mr. Strang: I note the hon. Gentleman's observations about a trip by journalists, but he will acknowledge that in this context journalists are relatively trivial. I can assure him of my determination to see that Dundee starts to get a real share of the jobs that are being created as a result of North Sea oil development. For that reason I am visiting Dundee during the Easter Recess and I hope to take my Secretary of State with me.

INDUSTRY

Export Production (Steel Supplies)

Mr. Stanley: asked the Secretary of State for Industry what steps he is taking to ensure that exporting companies are given priority in the allocation of available steel supplies.

The Under-Secretary of State for Industry (Mr. Michael Meacher): My Department has looked closely at the possibility of giving priority in steel supplies to requirements for export production. However, such general priority would damage other equally important uses such as import-saving production, agriculture, the North Sea oil programme and productive investment, and would therefore not be helpful.

Mr. Stanley: Is the hon. Gentleman aware of the acute difficulty that many small and medium-size firms in engineering are experiencing in obtaining steel supplies, and will he bear in mind in particular that some of these companies

are amongst our most productive in the export field?

Mr. Meacher: I am well aware of the problems but I do not think that they would be assisted by the kind of rationing scheme that the hon. Gentleman wants. There are a very large number of small steel users, many of them engaged in the export trade, and even to register them would be a major administrative exercise. The real argument against it is that steel production this month has come near to a return to full production after the three-day working week, and it expects to meet demand in full by the middle of this year.

Mr. Speaker: Order. The Prime Minister, statement,

Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I seek your guidance. Would you prefer me to put the point later?

Mr. Speaker: I shall take the hon. Gentleman's point of order later.

Mr. Rost: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. My point of order relates to the Prime Minister's statement—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I shall take points of order relating to the right hon. Gentleman's statement afterwards.

LAND TRANSACTIONS

The Prime Minister (Mr. Harold Wilson): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a statement.
I apologise to the Leader of the Opposition for the delay in sending a copy to him. I was with the Prime Minister of Jamaica for two and a half hours and did not get a chance to check the final typing.
On Thursday my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House indicated that I would be making a statement on the parliamentary aspects of issues featured in recent Press reports. In view of the concern which has been expressed, when I have dealt with the immediate parliamentary issues I will deal also with more general matters.
The principal matters directly affectine Parliament relate to reports which imply the theft of a sheet of headed notepaper from my office and the forgery of my


signature. These matters could involve criminal offences and are now under investigation by the police. They may raise questions about access to and security in the Palace of Westminster. When the police inquiries and any resulting proceedings are completed, it will be necessary for the House to consider these implications. It may be necessary to seek from the Metropolitan Police and others technical advice on questions of access and security, so that the House can weigh these considerations against the considerations of convenience and of accessibility of Members of Parliament which also arise.
Now as to the wider issues. I should make it clear that there is no ministerial responsibility in any of the matters which have been the subject of allegations or suggestions in the Press. No civil servant, permanent or temporary, has been involved at any time. I was not myself involved in any way in any of the transactions in question. At no time have I had any financial investment or interest, direct or indirect, in any of them.
On these transactions, detailed statements have now been issued by solicitors acting for Mr. H. A. Field. I have nothing that I can add to these statements, save to say that no evidence has been produced to suggest that any of the transactions was in any way illegal or improper. Nor has any evidence been produced to suggest that Mr. Field at any time sought to use my name in connection with these transactions.
Mr. Field worked in the office of the Leader of the Opposition for two years until June 1973 as office manager on a part-time basis. He drew no salary. His duties as office manager included the recruitment of staff, pay, and PAYE, office equipment, office supplies, and my travel arrangements at home and abroad. He also helped to cope with the mechanical problems of handling over 300 letters a day from all parts of the country. He was not concerned with matters of policy, Labour Party or otherwise. He was not concerned with National Executive Committee documents, was not consulted on policy questions, did not offer advice on such questions, and was not concerned with the drafting or content of my speeches.
I have referred to Mr. Field's duties in relation to my correspondence. The

House will have seen the statement issued by my solicitor's last Wednesday, referring to a letter which featured heavily in Press reports, sent by Mr. Field on my behalf to the Warwickshire County Council. This letter was treated in exactly the same routine manner as some 500 letters each week, where help was sought from me by members of the public in dealing with Ministries, local authorities, or other bodies.
I have referred to the two statements issued by Mr. Field's solicitors. One of them dealt in detail with the history of a derelict land clearance operation in Lancashire. The other endorsed the statement which was made on my behalf last Wednesday, that I was in no way involved in these transactions. This has not been in question.
I knew that in 1967—four years before he joined my office—Mr. Field has formed a family business, involving his father, a former small builder, and other members of the family. On occasion he discussed the slag clearance transaction with me. The precise details were none of my concern, though it was clearly an enterprising transaction which would have the effect of retrieving unusable land for desirable uses. But I did, of course, know that Mr. Field had been actively engaged working on the site, and, as any regular golf partner would be able to discover, that he broke his leg in an industrial accident there.
Much Press reference has been made to Mr. Field's sister, Mrs. Williams, who has been my political and private secretary for many years, though not a civil servant at any time. Many of my right hon. and hon. Friends, and indeed some other honourable Members, know her and would pay tribute to her loyalty to our party and her contribution to the political life of this present generation. For several days now she has been subject to an intolerable degree of newspaper harassment on her doorstep, including an unauthorised entry into her car, and the incitement of children to hammer upon her door. These activities, if I may use so neutral a word to describe them, would, I am sure, offend the vast majority of journalists, all of whose names are blackened by them. Members on this side of the House might reasonably conclude that, although she has been the principal victim of this behaviour, this is a


cowardly way of attacking me, which is the purpose, and, through me, the Government.
It is right that I should say straight away that Mrs. Williams played no part whatsoever in the running of the company involved in the slag clearance operation and never had any dealings, business or social, with any of the property men described in the various Press reports.
Some reports relating to myself have been repudiated in the statement by my solicitors, and in the case of other persons repudiations have been issued by the solicitors concerned. To mention only one incident in order to enable the House to form some impression of the expedients which have been resorted to in an endeavour to involve my name in all this, I might refer to a publication which is not the subject of legal action at this time, Saturday's Daily Express. Under an eight-column double-decker headline "Wilson met land dealers" and a subsidiary headline "Commons office used for talks "—headlines which clearly might raise anxieties in the minds of hon. Members in the context of this case—the supporting story underlying those headlines showed that its substance was that a surveyor who met Mr. Field and to whom I was, by chance, briefly introduced disclosed in a subsequent statement to the Press that I had noticed that he was wearing a well-known golf club tie. For a minute or two we discussed golf and golf courses—nothing else. All we discussed related to that important and certainly uncontroversial matter. Yet that conversation was the vehicle and warrant for those sensational headlines, and even for everything those headlines were designed to produce in the mind of the reader.
I have now referred in some detail to the transactions which have been the subject of stories and allegations in the Press. But I have read that there is concern among hon. and, in the main, unidentified Members, including some of my hon. Friends on this side of the House, about two other issues. I do not know how widespread this concern may be. So far I have myself received only one letter from a Member of Parliament—a perfectly courteous letter—and a couple of dozen letters in all from members of the public, a substantial majority of them

expressing sympathy and support or criticising the Press.
One of the anxieties is the suggestion that transactions undertaken by my staff were inconsistent with statements made by my right hon. Friends and myself about land speculation—principally the purchase of land needed for housing and other social welfare purposes and its resale at vast, indeed—I quote the word I have used before—obscene, profits. Sir, I have condemned and do condemn that.
While I have always drawn a distinction in my public speeches before and during the election between property development and land speculation, I believe—and we are committed to this—that the only way to deal with these problems is for all land required for development and redevelopment to come into public ownership. On this we are urgently engaged, and the more that I have read in the past week, the more urgent I think it is.
In my view, one cannot compare the kind of land speculation we have condemned with the particular kind of operation involved here. This kind of operation is widely done by local authorities, but there are contractors in various former mining and steel districts where this is done by private enterprise, as far as I know entirely without criticism. In this case, I understand, the operations had the full support of the local authority, both on Eyesore grounds—Operation Spring-clean was running at that time—and because they were designed to produce new land for industry and employment in an area of heavy unemployment.
The second question, on which I gather from the Press there is concern, relates to some of the Press stories about some of the individual property dealers who have featured not in the land-clearing operations but in the subsequent negotiations for sale of the cleared land. I have been asked how certain individuals who have recently received publicity could ever have been brought into the matter. I thought it right to make direct inquiries into this since I have seen the reports. I have been informed by Mr. Field that, following an initial introduction, he was advised by a prominent and respected merchant bank of its willingness to underwrite the man he was to deal with—a Mr. Milhench—by providing him with full financial backing for the project.
It is not for me in this statement to express any view about the motivation of some of the newspapers concerned. Hon. Members will form their own judgment. But there have been a number of incidents in the gathering or the attempted gathering of news which ought to arouse the gravest concern in Fleet Street.
Sir, I have tried to set out in some detail the issues raised by the stories and allegations which have appeared in the media. I hope I have made clear that there is no justification whatever in the attempts that have been made to sensationalise the affair and no reason why any member of my own staff should forfeit the trust I place in them.

Mr. Heath: The House will be grateful that the Prime Minister, in response to requests which came from both sides of the House on Thursday, has thought it right to make this statement today. I fully accept the difficulty that he had in getting the statement to us earlier, but it will, naturally, mean that hon. Members will want to study it carefully.
In the meantime, may I ask the right hon. Gentleman for an assurance on one point: that, regarding the first part of his statement—

Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. [Interruption.] Was the Prime Minister making a ministerial or a personal statement? There are different rules, as the Chair has always held, governing the two.

Mr. Speaker: Had it been a personal statement there could have been no questions on it at all. It was not a personal statement.

Mr. Heath: May I ask the Prime Minister for an assurance on the first matter with which he dealt, the question of the alleged forgery of his signature, and the last part of his statement, that he does not mean to preclude or prejudge any conclusion to which these investigations may come for the responsibility for that—because they may obviously involve security not only here in the Palace of Westminster but elsewhere, as far as anyone found to be associated with the matter may be concerned—that the House will be kept informed of the results of the inquiries?

The Prime Minister: Yes, certainly. I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for mentioning that matter. I give every assurance that there is no question of precluding any conclusions that may be drawn as a result of these inquiries. The right hon. Gentleman will know that when my solicitors made a statement last week there was an announcement that the question of the alleged forgery would be put into the hands of the police. In the event—this followed the usual procedure in these matters—my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General took action and called in Scotland Yard. Scotland Yard has had every co-operation from myself and all others concerned. It will be for Scotland Yard to report whether there is any case that needs dealing with by criminal or by any other form of proceedings. What I said in the earlier part of my statement was related to that in this sense. If the report were to show that there is laxity in this place, whoever may be responsible, about leaving rooms unlocked when unoccupied and that kind of thing so that notepaper can be stolen, or if there is any other question of anxiety, I suggest that there should be talks through the usual channels with all parties to decide how we mutually feel that the matter should be handled, whether perhaps by the Select Committee on House of Commons (Services) or by asking the police in the first instance for advice. That is the assurance that I give to the right hon. Gentleman.

Mr. William Hamilton: Will my right hon. Friend tell the House when he knew of the details regarding the perfectly legal transactions in which members of his personal staff were involved? Did he know about them only after Mr. Field's solicitors had issued their statement last Friday or beforehand? Will he also tell us the distinction between derelict land and development land? Is a bomb site a derelict site or a development site? Will that be made clear in the forthcoming legislation? Does my right hon. Friend recognise that there is considerable disquiet on this side of the House about the composition of his kitchen cabinet?

The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend asked when I knew about the particular transaction. I knew about it when it started. It is difficult for anyone to play golf with someone and not know what


business he is in. I am sure that my hon. Friend will know that. That was in 1967. There was no mystery about it. I referred to the fact that I obviously knew when he was unable to play golf because he had broken his leg in operations on the site. There was no question of having to wait until last week. The whole story was printed in the Daily Mail on the day of the vote on the Gracious Speech, but for some reason it was not picked up at that time.
My hon. Friend asked about the distinction between derelict land and development land. Our policy set out in the manifesto on which he as well as I fought the General Election, is that all land required for development or redevelopment is to be taken into public ownership. That is the policy of the Labour Party and of this Government. That has never been in question. It does not arise in this case, because the previous Government had not done it. Therefore, they were not involved.
My hon. Friend and right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite may know that I draw a distinction between land speculation of a kind where someone sits in a Mayfair office and buys land at one figure—[Interruption.]—and sells it for another and where, in another case, someone works hard on the site for all the hours there are removing aggregate. [Interruption.] If hon. Gentlemen cannot see the difference, that will be very helpful when we come to the legislation. I think that there is all the difference here. A value was created and new land was available for employment. I think that is important in my part of Lancashire.

Mr. Thorpe: Is the Prime Minister aware that we are grateful for his assurance that no Minister or civil servant is involved in this matter? Is he also aware that, as he indicated in his statement, the House will take a continuing interest to see whether any security matters involved may or may not be highlighted in the event of there being any criminal prosecution for the alleged forgery to which he has referred?
Is the Prime Minister further aware that, whilst there may be matters of continuing political argument, the real essence today is whether there is a par-

liamentary consideration at stake? Having reserved one's position on those two matters, may I ask whether the right hon. Gentleman agrees that there have been enough instant headlines already and that we had better await events?

The Prime Minister: Yes, I think that is so. The police are investigating these matters. As I said to the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition, I will ensure that, apart from any public announcements about any proceedings that there may be, a full report will be made to the House on the findings of the police.

Mr. Atkinson: Would my right hon. Friend not agree that the whole experience points directly at the problem suffered, particularly by a Leader of the opposition and leading members of an opposition party in trying to pay adequate salaries for personal assistants and researchers working on their staffs? Is it not a fact that during the whole period of our opposition leading members of the then Opposition, and particularly the then Leader of the Opposition, had difficulty in being able to select personal research assistants and secretarial staffs with the funds which were available?
Therefore, has not the time come when we ought to turn our attention to the whole question of providing funds to pay adequately research staff and personal secretarial assistants so that situations can be avoided whereby leading parliamentarians are dependent upon people who do not need salaries to do a useful job in giving help in the House? Does not my right hon. Friend recollect that in the United States it was precisely a situation of this kind which led to a conclusion that adequate funds must be made available to the leaders of the opposition to pay staff adequately and to give freedom of choice in the selection of those people who are chosen by, and who work for leading members of the opposition party?

The Prime Minister: The question raised by my hon. Friend is very important and is a matter which I raised in the opening speeches of this Parliament on the Gracious Speech, when I said that we would hope to enter into discussions with opposition parties about providing the necessary staff. For instance, if one receives 300 letters a day this means that


a lot of staff are required and they have to be paid for.
However, while the matter which my hon. Friend has raised is important it has no bearing whatsoever on my statement today on the particular case involved. The question of large sums of money being available for the Opposition and the Liberals and other parties has no relevance whatsoever today. I have attempted today to state the facts as I have known them to be.

Mr. Graham Page: As the transactions have been so proper and innocent, on what grounds has the Prime Minister issued libel writs?

The Prime Minister: I do not know how far I can answer that question today, but an answer which might be in order is that I was advised that statements in the Press—headlines and other matter—were libellous. That was why the writs were issued.

Mr. Ashley: Is my right hon. Friend aware that headlines in certain newspapers outside the House and the innuendos of certain hon. Members inside the House will fall through because some hon. Members on this side are determined that neither the House nor the country will be allowed to forget the single most fundamental fact that the Prime Minister's conduct and principles are beyond praise and so high as to be sure to shame those people who attempt to accuse him at this time?

The Prime Minister: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I referred to some totally tendentious and misleading headlines which are not the subject of legal proceedings. There are exceptions—not every headline is of the kind my hon. Friend has referred to.
In yesterday's Sunday People there was a story about two Conservative property dealers, one of whom saw a name on a document which gave them the possibility of making political capital. The headline was:
I exposed land deal to smash Labour.
One of them explained how he got in touch with the Daily Mail, hoping to make this an election issue.

Mr. Burden: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that this is a matter which in various aspects affects the whole of

the House of Commons and that the House is very jealous of its rights and honour? There has been no implication against anybody, but it would appear that the House of Commons paper was used and that certain transactions took place in rooms in the House of Commons. Therefore, will the right hon. Gentleman agree, after the police and security organisations have carried out their investigations, on the setting up of a Select Committee to go into the whole matter?

The Prime Minister: I have given an assurance that when any criminal investigations, as they may prove to be, are complete the House will have a full report. I agree that this matter affects the whole of the House. We shall have to decide what will happen after the investigations are complete.
I cannot accept on the basis of the headline I quoted, which related to a 90-second talk about golf, that that justified the headline which has obviously, perfectly fairly, upset the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Milne: Is not the Prime Minister aware that he is wrong when he says that no protests have been made about the question of speculation on land reclamation? Many of us in areas affected by pit closures have repeatedly brought speculation in this particular sector to the attention of the right hon. Gentleman and previous administrations.
Is the Prime Minister aware that we commend the speed with which he has moved on this particular matter, but we regret that on an issue which we have raised with him and other administrations he has not moved so speedily or so effectively?
On the question of signatures on letters, is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the signatures of himself and his right hon. Friend the Leader of the House were actually used against me during the course of the General Election campaign and that other persons concerned, including many hon. Members on the Front and back benches in the House, were equally affected, but nothing was done?

Hon. Members: Disgraceful.

The Prime Minister: On the first matter raised by my hon. Friend about particular development on pit heaps and slag heaps, and the rest of these matters, I know that there have been criticisms in


some cases, but I drew a perfectly valid distinction in what I said today.
My hon. Friend also complains that the Leader of the Opposition and I had been slow to act on the advice he had given. He is probably referring to a Royal Commission on the Poulson affair. I replied to questions about that last week, and I referred to the action of the right hon. Gentleman opposite in setting up the committee under Lord Redcliffe-Maud, which does not arise on this question.
The other matter which my hon. Friend raised—about what happened regarding particular elections and appeals from party leaders about voting for the official candidate of a party—does not in any way arise out of my statement. The issue. I have decided, was intended to influence the election, but something went wrong at the time with the newspaper concerned. But it has nothing to do with the election in Blyth, I am happy to inform my hon. Friend.

Mr. Peyton: Would the right hon. Gentleman give further thought to both the desirability and the effectiveness of anyone in his tremendous position as Prime Minister issuing writs without any regard to the circumstances or to advice? Is any useful purpose served in taking such action?

The Prime Minister: There were the circumstances and I had the advice. It is always a question which one considers with great care. The precedents are difficult in this matter. The right hon. Gentleman has himself been a Minister but perhaps will not be in the same position as some of us who understand this situation. This sort of thing does not happen to the right hon. Gentleman's party.

Mr. Bidwell: May I inform my right hon. Friend that so scurrilous has a wide section of the Press become in public affairs and on this matter that they were searching for hon. Members who were known to be political critics of him when he was previously Prime Minister, inquiring whether those hon. Members had met any kind of obstruction from his personal secretary and inquiring also about other matters of that kind.
Will not my right hon. Friend accept that a Government in the position of his will always be particularly vulnerable from the anti-Labour Press? This leads us to suggest that we should strengthen the Labour, Liberal and Socialist Press, so that we can clean the matter up.

The Prime Minister: This statement should not get us into a position in which we start to do commercials for Labour Weekly. The point that my hon. Friend makes is a new one to me; I was not aware that such inquiries had been made. My own view is that certain recent Press conduct is confined to a very small section of the Press, that it is not representative of the general view of the Press and that other critical articles which have appeared over the last few days, so far as I am concerned, have stemmed from a genuine feeling that the facts should be more clearly known. I think that that was a fair criticism to make, and at the earliest possible opportunity I have done so.
Since the question has been raised of the advice available to a Prime Minister or party leader, whether in government or in opposition, my hon. Friends will be aware that my organisation of government is not the small closed circle that it is described in the Press but that on three days a week, from 2.30 to six o'clock, my door is open for any hon. Friend of mine. Indeed, if hon. Members opposite want to come and see me they may do so. In a party like ours—I am sure that the same is true of the Conservative Party—no leader ever lacks advice from his Members of Parliament.

Mr. Heath: I had not intended to intervene again, but I hope that, on further reflection, the Prime Minister will withdraw a remark that he made in his reply to my right hon. Friend the Member for Yeovil (Mr. Peyton). [An HON. MEMBER: "Why?"] I will tell the right hon. Gentleman why. Because hon. Members on this side have been attacked by the Press at different times in exactly the same way as in any other quarter. Perhaps I might remind the right hon. Gentleman that one of the most distinguished of my right hon. Friends, both in opposition and in government, the right hon. Member for Chipping Barnet (Mr. Maudling), suffered over a period of years from the abuse of


his name in court without even being able to seek the redress of a writ. For this reason, and because he was a man of great honour and integrity, when the case came to be inquired into he offered his resignation to me and ceased to be a member of the Government. I hope therefore that the Prime Minister will withdraw that remark, which is, if I may say so, unworthy of him.

The Prime Minister: I gladly accede to what the right hon. Gentleman says, certainly in respect of the right hon. Member for Chipping Barnet (Mr. Maudling). Very many hon. Members on this side as well as on his own felt that the right hon. Gentleman had been most unfairly treated. I agree that he had been hounded. To that extent, I withdraw what I said. [Interruption.] Certainly. The point that I was trying to make was that, while all Prime Ministers have to face criticism, I do not think that it is so usual on the other side for large squads of journalists to go all over the country—I accept the case involving the right hon. Member for Barnet —just looking for things of this kind.
Someone who was until recently a Member of this House informed one of my right hon. Friends that going to his constituency newspaper in a big provincial town were members of a certain national paper snooping around to see what they could find; he said that 26 people were employed on that story. I am not aware that anything like 26 people have ever been employed on any story affecting land dealings by friends of the Leader of the Opposition when he was Prime Minister.

Mr. Speaker: I will now take points of order on this statement.

Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: Before coming to the point of which I have given you notice, Mr. Speaker, I want to consult you on another matter which has arisen in the last half hour because it has set a precedent which I have never known before in the last 14 years.
The Prime Minister has just made a statement concerning allegations all of which, if they happened at all, happened when he was not a Minister. If a Member comes to you and asks to make a personal statement, he shows you a copy of his statement, which must be non-

controversial, and to which you must agree if he is to make it. Never before have I heard a ministerial statement allowed on matters which have nothing whatever to do with ministerial duties but are solely concerned with the personal conduct of the right hon. Member for Huyton (Mr. Wilson) and his acquaintances.
If this is to be a precedent, that anyone who happens to be a Minister of the Crown can use ministerial statements and the associated procedure instead of the personal statement procedure for dealing with his purely personal affairs rather than his ministerial duties, then I think it right that you should make a public statement that in this respect the rules and practice of the House have been altered.

Mr. Speaker: With regard to a personal statement, the hon. Gentleman is quite correct. A personal statement cannot be made unless it has been submitted to me, and the custom of the House is that when a right hon. or hon. Member makes a personal statement there is no further discussion of it. As I have said again and again to the House, I have no control over other statements which Ministers make. If a Minister announces his intention to make a statement, it is not for me in that case to examine the statement first. Ministers must take their own responsibility for the statements they make. If this were to lead to any abuse, I suspect that the House would soon react to it.

The Prime Minister: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. A number of questions have been put down to me on the Order Paper on this question, on peripheral or very small parts of it. It will be in the recollection of the House that questions were also put to the Leader of the House last week pressing very strongly that I should make a statement. It was in response to these requests that I asked your permission to do so. Mr. Speaker.

EARLY-DAY MOTIONS

Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: I should now like to raise my second point of order—completely different—of which I have given you notice, Mr. Speaker. In the Eighteenth Edition of Erskine May, on


page 366, with reference to Early-Day Motions tabled by hon. Members, one reads:
A notice wholly out of order, as, for Instance, containing a reflection on a vote of the House, may be withheld from publication on the notice paper. If the irregularity is not extreme, the notice is printed, and reserved for future consideration.
That is quite clear.
Following the debate a week ago last Monday on rates, I wrote to the Prime Minister a short letter concerning a statement made by one of his Ministers in Exeter. I have supplied you, Mr. Speaker, with a copy of that. I received back a letter which purported to be from the Prime Minister which in fact covered none of the points that I had made, and the explanation that it gave could not conceivably nave been true. That left two alternatives—either that the Prime Minister had put his name to a letter which could not possibly be true or that the letter had been sent in his name though not in fact signed by him.
I therefore submitted to the Table Office last Thursday a motion which read as follows:
That this House, noting that the explanations given of the speech made by the Parliamentary Secretary for Industry in Exeter recently in what purports to be a letter from the Prime Minister to the hon Member for Tiverton dated 4th April 1974 cannot possibly he true, requests the Prime Minister to have this letter examined by the Police to ascertain whether it is authentic, or another embarrassing forgery.
That was accepted by the Table Office and I naturally expected it to be on the Order Paper on Friday—the more so because I had appended to it for greater clarity the correspondence to which it referred.
The motion did not appear on the Order Paper and I had a note from one of the Clerks saying that he has shown it to the Clerk of the Table. He went on:
He has expressed the opinion that the Motion is not suitable for inclusion on the Order Paper, and I regret therefore that I have to return it to you.
The point, Mr. Speaker, is this: whether the Clerk at the Table thinks that something is suitable is immaterial. This House is governed by very clear rules. I have quoted Erskine May to you, Mr. Speaker. If an
irregularity is not extreme"—

I know of no irregularity in the motion whatever—
the notice is printed, and reserved for future consideration.
That notice, Mr. Speaker, should therefore have been printed and should have appeared on the Order Paper on Friday.

Mr. Speaker: I received notice of this point of order only very shortly before I came into the Chair. I had time to read hastily page 366 of Erskine May, where it appears lower down the page that the Speaker
has also directed that a notice of motion should not be printed, as being obviously not a proper subject for debate, being tendered in a spirit of mockery, or being designed merely to give annoyance or as irregular.
However, I shall consider the hon. Member's point and if necessary communicate with him further.

SUB JUDICE RULE

Mr. Rost: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I apologise for not having given you notice of this point of order, but I wonder whether I may have your guidance. On previous occasions in the House when matters have been raised which have been subject to some legal case or to some writ, you have very kindly given guidance to hon. Members as to what was and what was not in order. I may not have been alone today in feeling inhibited in discussing the matter at all, in case perhaps one was in risk of being in breach of the privileges of the House. I feel that this matter is relevant not just to the statement which we have had today but possibly to any future comment which right hon. or hon. Members may wish to make or may be invited to make, perhaps, on the media or in the House.
I wonder whether you, Mr. Speaker, will give a ruling whether you feel that this statement should have been made at all without the writs having first been withdrawn.

Mr. Speaker: I can assure the hon. Gentleman that had I thought that there was anything improper in the statement I would have so ruled as it was being made. With regard to the sub judice rule, I think that there have been two reports of the Select Committee on Procedure. I think


that the view was taken that when criminal proceedings are pending great caution should be exercised not to try the case in the House of Commons beforehand.
With regard to civil proceedings, there are, I think, other rules. But actions for defamation may conceivably be affected by proceedings in the House, and, therefore, I think that the Speaker, who is given a complete discretion, must watch the whole matter carefully.
I am absolutely satisfied that nothing which has happened today could possibly influence the outcome of any proceedings in a court.

MR. LASZLO VIRAG

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Roy Jenkins): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I wish to make a statement about the case of Mr. Laszlo Virag, which I regret to say has involved a grave miscarriage of justice.
At the Gloucestershire Assizes on 11th July 1969 Mr. Virag was convicted of a number of serious offences. For two offences of theft of parking meter coin boxes in Liverpool and for using a firearm to resist arrest, he was sentenced to concurrent terms of imprisonment amounting to three years; and for two offences of theft of parking meter coin boxes committed some weeks later in Bristol and for wounding a police officer with intent to cause grievous bodily harm or resist arrest, he was sentenced to concurrent terms amounting to seven years. The two groups of sentences were ordered to run consecutively, making 10 years in all.
Mr. Virag appealed to the Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) for leave to appeal against his conviction and sentence, but his application was refused by the Full Court in March 1970.
No representations were received by the Home Office from or on behalf of Mr. Virag, but in September 1971 the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions wrote to the Department drawing attention to certain similar offences committed in the London area by another man and to evidence which suggested that he might have been involved in the offences in Liverpool and Bristol. Most regrettably the view taken at that time was that the new

information was not inconsistent with Mr. Virag's having been rightfully convicted. The matter rested there until August 1973, when the case was brought to the attention of a more senior official, who decided to institute further inquiries. At the request of the Home Office, the Chief Constable of Gloucestershire and Liverpool arranged for a thorough reinvestigation to be undertaken by a senior officer of the Thames Valley Police.
In the light of this investigation I was satisfied that Mr. Virag was innocent beyond reasonable doubt of the offences of which he was convicted. I accordingly decided to recommend a free pardon and directed the immediate release of Mr. Virag. which took place on Friday 5th April.
I have also given authority for an ex-gratia payment to be made from public funds in reparation for the injustice he has suffered. In accordance with the normal practice where such payments are made, I shall invite an experienced and independent assessor to advise me on the sum to be paid.
There are a number of aspects of this case about which the House will be seriously concerned and I am urgently considering its implications. Clearly there was unacceptable delay within the Home Office. I am reviewing the procedures for dealing with such cases in order to try to avoid any repetition of such a course of events.
I am also concerned about the serious questions that the case, following the recent case of Mr. Dougherty, must raise about the present law and procedures relating to identification.
The case against Mr. Virag rested on identification evidence. On the face of it this was substantial—he was picked out on properly conducted identification parades by no fewer than eight witnesses: three officers of the Gloucestershire Police, two officers of the Liverpool Police, and three civilian witnesses. However a number of witnesses did not so identify him, and it is now apparent that those witnesses who did were most unfortunately mistaken.
The case of Mr. Dougherty has already given cause for concern about the efficacy of identification procedures and there have been other cases where doubts have been felt. I am convinced that this is an


area of the criminal law and police procedure which needs urgent review, and I have therefore decided to appoint a small committee to examine it, in the light of Mr. Virag's and Mr. Dougherty's convictions, and of any other relevant cases. The committee will be asked to report as quickly as possible, and I shall make a further and early announcement about its membership and terms of reference.

Mr. Prior: I should like to comment, first, on the Home Secretary's statement. It is a strength of our system, both our legal system and our police procedures, that in serious cases where justice has gone awry, as it has in this case, the Home Secretary should make a statement to the House. We are all grateful to him for his statement.
I have two questions to ask the right hon. Gentleman. First, it appears from what he said—it is bound to give cause for anxiety—that Mr. Virag was picked out by no fewer than eight witnesses at a properly conducted identification parade. Does not the fact that eight witnesses wrongly identified this man give some cause for anxiety as to the procedures adopted?
Second, the right hon. Gentleman mentioned the need for a small committee urgently to examine the whole procedure. The Criminal Law Revision Committee recommended that further steps should be taken, certainly in disputed identification cases. Therefore, why do we need this small committee? Could not the report of the Criminal Law Revision Committee on Evidence be used in order to make speedy changes where necessary?

Mr. Jenkins: The fact that eight witnesses did so identify the man and, as it now appears, mistakenly did so, is a cause for concern, which is why I have made the statement and am proceeding as I am.
What the Criminal Law Revision Committee recommended, as I understand it, was that the judge should warn the jury of the caution which it should apply—I use "caution" in a non-technical sense —in dealing with identification evidence. However, I understand that this was done in the case of Mr. Virag.

Mr. Bagier: Does my right hon. Friend accept that the case of Luke Dougherty

is just as important as that of Virag and raises grave issues as to how our system of justice works. Does he agree that the identification procedure which was adopted left a tremendous amount to be desired, inasmuch as two witnesses, against whose honesty I cast no imputation, were shown photographs and in fact an identification parade was never held? The accused was placed in a jury and the witnesses were then asked to identify the man. It later came to light that the witnesses concerned could see the man being placed amongst the jury. In other words, does my right hon. Friend agree that the whole procedure of how the police carry out identification parades must be very closely examined?
Does my right hon. Friend agree further that an aspect which the committee should consider is that, although 20 witnesses were prepared to swear that Luke Dougherty was on a bus trip at the appropriate time, because of a desire to save costs only five witnesses were called and the other 15 who could and should have been called were not called? Does my right hon. Friend agree, therefore, that the desire to save costs has helped to lead to this miscarriage of justice?
Does my right hon. Friend agree further that the astounding situation arose later in the Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) that, because of rules which prevent witnesses from being called on appeal who were available to be called at the time of trial but were not called then, the 15 witnesses who could and should have been called were not called even then? That is as I understand the reason, even though I am not a lawyer.

Mr. Jenkins: I fully take into account what my hon. Friend said. I will not in any way attempt to judge the relative significance of these two cases. They were both cases of miscarriage of justice. This is always serious whenever it occurs and whatever length of prison sentence is involved. There is, however, an important difference between the two cases. One is that, as my hon. Friend pointed out, it appears that the identification procedure was not correctly followed in the Dougherty case, whereas it was as far as I am aware, correctly followed in the Virag case but still led to a result which causes great concern and which is the reason I have made the statement to the


House this afternoon. It will be fully for the committee which is to be appointed to inquire into both aspects of this matter.

Mr. Crowder: Does the Home Secretary agree that in cases of identity it is essential in future that the trial judge should direct the jury on the same basis as in cases where accomplices arc involved, namely, that there should be corroboration—in other words, some independent testimony which supports the actual identification?

Mr. Jenkins: I think that this is very much a matter for the committee. However, I take note of what the hon. and learned Gentleman said and the committee, when appointed, will no doubt do so, too.

Mr. Tomney: This is a sorry experience which must not be repeated by the Crown prosecutors. Is my right hon. Friend aware that in future in all cases where the police are directly involved there should be another identification parade at not more than a month's interval? Is my right hon. Friend further aware that in this case the fingerprints of a known criminal were found in the car which was used by Virag? Why was not this man found and interrogated?
Why were the papers left on my right hon. Friend's predecessor's table for so long before action was taken? This has left a very sorry taste in the mouth as regards the Director of Public Prosecutions. It must not be repeated. When the police go after a criminal with a record it is essential that the right man is nailed and that he stays nailed if there is to be any respect for the law. My right hon. Friend must give his attention to the question of identification parades where the police are directly involved.

Mr. Jenkins: I will certainly bear all relevant facts in mind. I will also bear in mind the delay to which my hon. Friend drew attention and, indeed, to which I draw attention in the course of my statement. I am anxious—this is why I made the fullest statement that I could at the earliest opportunity following Mr. Virag's having been released on Friday —that nothing should be concealed about this case or any other case and that we should endeavour to learn from it in every possible way and should ensure, so far

as this is humanly possible, that there will be no repetition.

Mr. Pardoe: The House will be appalled by the matter of the Home Secretary's statement but will have welcomed the seriousness with which he regards the case. First, can the Home Secretary confirm that there is no statutory limit to the ex-gratia payment that can be made? Secondly, does he not think that the whole question of identification procedure and the review of it is a proper matter of concern for the House and that it might therefore be looked at by a Select Committee of the House? Thirdly, if the right hon. Gentleman decides against that and proceeds to set up the committee that he suggested, can he say that a majority of that committee will be lay members and not members of the legal profession and certainly not members of the police? Lastly, does the Home Secretary intend to set up a procedure to review the cases of all those who are now in prison as a result of a conviction on identity alone?

Mr. Jenkins: I will take account of what the hon. Gentleman said. There is no statutory limit to the amount of compensation. This matter will fall to be determined by the independent assessor. I can tell the hon. Gentleman and the House that my intention is that it will be Sir Walker Carter, the Chairman of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board. who has normally been involved and who I think has attracted great commendation for his work in this field.
As for the composition of the committee, I think that an outside independent committee is correct and that is why I have decided to appoint such a committee. It will be open to the House to discuss the committee's report in any way which it thinks proper. I will, as I have indicated, certainly endeavour to ensure that our procedures are reviewed, but I think that it would be a mistake to say that it would be possible to review every case in which there has been conviction upon the basis of identification. Indeed I think that it would be a grave disservice to the cause of justice were one to suggest that, because of this case, even following upon the case of Mr. Dougherty—after all, it has been many years since there has been a case of similar importance and gravity—there


was any doubt about the guilt of all those convicted on identification.

Mr. Arthur Lewis: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on the speed with which he has brought this matter before the House and upon the steps he is taking. Will he suggest to the committee that it should investigate any cases in which the police officers concerned have subsequently been found guilty of serious offences such as perjury and attempting the planting of evidence or have confessed to that? Will my right hon. Friend look up in his files the case of Brett, who is one such case?

Mr. Jenkins: I will certainly look up the case of Brett as my hon. Friend requests me to do. The committee, when its terms of reference are announced, will no doubt be able to inquire as widely as it thinks proper within its terms of reference and it will certainly meet with no resistance from me.
I have linked the case of Dougherty with the case of Virag for the purposes of the inquiry. It was the two together that made it clear to me that we needed an inquiry into the matter. However, my statement this afternoon was about the case of Mr. Virag and I should make it clear that there is not the slighest suggestion of any improper behaviour by the police in the case of Virag. Indeed, the police and prosecuting authorities played a notable part in uncovering this miscarriage of justice. It was perhaps one of the relatively rare cases of doubt where no representations were received from outside or from any hon. Member of this House. It came from inside—not from inside the Home Office exactly but from inside the processes of law and of justice.

Mr. Carlisle: Would the right hon. Gentleman say whether in this particular case there was any other evidence against Mr. Virag or whether it was merely evidence of identification? Secondly, on

the question of delay, without in any way disagreeing with what the right hon. Gentleman said about this case, may I ask him whether he would agree that the vital matter in the interests of an accused is that any such investigation at a later stage of a man's conviction should be thorough so as to allay any public concern, that investigations of this kind carried out by the Home Office are extremely thorough, which is one of the strengths of our system, and that when new evidence comes to light he can review evidence of what has occurred several years before?

Mr. Jenkins: On the first point, I will stand on what I said in my statement. The case against Mr. Virag rested on identification evidence. I think that is the fairest statement that I can make. I would rather not add to or subtract from that. As I indicated in reply to a previous supplementary, the injustice here was uncovered by internal processes, but I regret, as I am sure the hon. and learned Member for Runcorn (Mr. Carlisle) does, that there was this delay which led to Mr. Virag's period in gaol which was very long—longer than we would all have wished it to be.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. This is private Members' time.

BILL PRESENTED COMPANIES

Sir Brandon Rhys Williams presented a Bill to require certain companies to appoint non-executive directors ; to require such directors to make an annual statement to the shareholders; and for purposes connected therewith.

And the same was read the First time and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 3rd May and to be printed. [Bill 26.]

COAL INDUSTRY

4.37 p.m.

Mr. Fred Evans: I beg to move,
That this House declares its confidence in the future of the British mining industry ; and, recognising the fundamental importance of coal in meeting the energy needs of the nation, calls upon Her Majesty's Government to indicate its plans for ensuring the security and expansion of the industry.
It is, indeed, a woeful experience that two such important statements should reduce the time available for us to discuss those who for miserable wages dig and produce the slagheaps and who have worked as semi-prisoners of war for a long time. Neverthless we have at long last got to this important debate.
At the outset I wish to express my personal gratitude and, I believe, the gratitude of the whole of the mining community to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment for settling the miners' dispute within a matter of days of the new Government coming into power. Without the speed of this settlement we might well be enduring today all the miseries of fuel shortages and of three-day working. After all, as I have said in the House before, we had before us some glittering prizes, and we were quite capable of grasping them. We had before us the prizes of North Sea oil, North Sea gas, followed by the great promise of the discovery in the Celtic Sea of vast reserves of oil, the prize of becoming energy self-sufficient by 1980, and by the middle of the 1980s being a net exporter of energy, with the transformation of the totality of our economic scene.
We could have seen our balance of payments problem solved. We could have seen a new industrial era in Britain. Of all the follies committed by the last Government, surely the monumental folly of all was that they were willing, in a world with a growing energy crisis, to place in jeopardy this great future for British energy.
I am not over-dramatising the rôle that oil can play, nor am I trying to over-dramatise the part that natural gas can play. I am not trying to over-dramatise the part that new coal finds can play, although the Chairman of the National Coal Board has already told us authoritatively that the new discovery in

Selby will outweigh in energy production the total of oil as yet found in the North Sea.
My purpose is to point the way. This motion is not in any way designed to embarrass the Government. Nor do I want to press the Government too hard on their future plans, knowing that an inquiry or a review is pending. What I hope will come out of this debate is some formative thinking from hon. Members on both sides of the House which may draw the attention of the inquiring review body to some aspects of the industry which may prove valuable for their considerations. At the end of the day it will not be my intention to press the motion to a Division because I hope that I shall receive reassurances enough from the Under-Secretary of State, Department of Energy, to satisfy me that the promises made by my party in its election manifesto and made for so long to the mining industry were meant and will be carried out.
We have seen a transformation in the world energy situation that is almost unbelievable. We must now look at the coal mining industry in the light of the new situation. That is why my motion falls into four parts. It calls, first of all, for an expression of confidence in the coal mining industry as in all probability the major contributor to fulfilling the energy needs of this country and leading us into a future where, as I have said, we could be a net exporter of energy. The recognition of this fundamental rôle is absolutely necessary.
The second part of my motion calls for a recognition that our energy supply in the future can enable us to play our part in the world in a way that we have not played it before.
The third part of the motion says that we require in this country a mining industry which has a secure future in terms of production and for the labour force engaged in it.
Taking the first part of the motion—planning for the expansion of the industry —there is nobody in this country, after the events of the last few years, who does not now appreciate the rôle that coal has to play. The public sympathy enlisted for the miners in the last few years is evidence of the growing consciousness of the people that we should use our indigenous resources to the best of our


ability and see that we play our part safely and competitively using those indigenous resources.
There has been a dramatic change in the world energy situation. As I say, most people now realise this fact. They realise that it is better to pay British miners than to pay oil sheikhs at the point of a pistol, and, more significantly for our manufacturing industries, it is cheaper as well as less dangerous.
We have only to remember the traumatic experience of the mining industry, the savage series of pit closures, the creation of vast numbers of redundancies, the social effects of closures on mining communities, and the shattering of morale within the industry to realise that, in spite of recent pay awards, the principle stated in the first part of the motion is vital.
The pay awards have done much to restore confidence. They have done much to arrest the flight of manpower from the industry. But, as 1 know very well, living in the heart of one of our coalfields, there is still the feeling that everything could happen once again, and the industry is still not secure. There is need for further assurance, and I can think of no better way to give that assurance than for us, across the Floor of the House, to say that we have confidence in this great energy potential of ours which comes from coal. It will really matter if we say it here today.
We have been blessed, as I have said, with bonus finds of oil and of North Sea gas, but we have reserves of coal yet unknown. It is highly improbable that the reserves of sea gas and oil, wherever we find them, will ever equal in energy potential the amount of coal which we have beneath our feet. In the world as a whole, 93 per cent. of the fossil energy reserves are constituted by coal. I have already reminded the House of what the Chairman of the National Coal Board said about Selby. It is imperative, therefore, that we use these reserves as intelligently and as usefully as we possibly can in the service of the nation.
If we want evidence of the sort of thinking which is going on in the world, we need turn only to the World Energy Congress which was organised by the

Financial Times, in conjunction with BOAC, on 18th-20th September 1973. We had gathered together there prominent energy experts from all over the world, who insisted that the world's great 93 per cent. of energy potential in coal must be used to an extent—I quote their own words—"hitherto not realised". In all fairness, let us add that the then British Secretary of State for Trade and Industry said that Britain is
fortunate in having substantial reserves of coal".
The Chairman of British Petroleum, opening the conference, said that the era of cheap energy was behind us and sources of energy which had been written off in recent years because of their high cost in relation to Middle East oil—sources such as oil sands, oil shales and coal itself—must come into consideration not only for long-term development but immediately.
In many countries, the decisions to exploit coal reserves have already been taken. Expansion of production in America, for example, is planned from 550 million tons in 1973 to 1,000 million tons in 1985, and to 1,400 million tons by the year 2000. Great expansion is planned in Canada, Australia, South Africa, the USSR and China. In Western Europe, a revaluation of the coal industry is rapidly going ahead, as anyone who reads the reports from the Bureau Européen d'informations Charbonniêres will readily acknowledge. Britain must not be left behind.
In the Labour Party, we have said that we must have an integrated energy policy. Over many years, the National Union of Mineworkers, as well as voices, including my own, from Labour Members of Parliament, have called, sometimes clamorously, for that integrated energy policy to come about, a policy under which every energy-producing component would be given its due part to play in the national economy. We were always convinced that, if this were done, the importance of coal would be recognised.
The importance of coal lies not only in its immediate use. When we look forward to periods such as the 1990s, when we begin to talk of the fluidised bed combustion process for coal linked with power stations, when we talk of the


gasification of coal, when we think of other technological developments such as the liquefaction of coal—incidentally, Japan has a pilot factory planned to open in 1977—when we think of all these great technological developments and, what is more, the extraction of chemicals from coal, we can realise the true significance of what we have beneath our feet.
This is why I am asking the Minister to reaffirm that policy of the Labour Party and to reassure the National Union of Mineworkers and people such as myself that the intention is serious and that we shall have a policy of that kind brought in. It may mean taking into control—if not ownership—North Sea oil. One cannot plan unless one owns, or owns in some part. It is as simple as that. We cannot totally plan and we cannot totally integrate otherwise. I hope that we shall have that assurance tonight.

Mr. Emlyn Hooson: I have considerable sympathy with what the hon. Gentleman says about the ownership of oil, but there is nevertheless another side to it—the provision of the capital for exploitation. If the Arab countries, for example, had not had capital from outside to exploit the oil, it would still be in the earth.

Mr. Evans: I cannot envisage a time when we should not be able to get enough capital on our own terms. We could raise the capital ourselves if we followed through the rest of the policies which the Labour Party would like to see. I remind the hon. and learned Gentleman that there is a move among the coal-producing countries to form a coal equivalent of OPEC, an organisation of coal-producing countries which would supply capital for the development of coal reserves.
Britain must not be left behind in this energy race or struggle call it what one will. For far too long, especially throughout the 1960s, coal mining was looked upon as a high-cost extractive industry. It was assumed that oil would continue to be available cheaply. Much of this thinking, I remind hon. Members opposite, was effective in the 1950s when the oil lobby in this place was so strong and wanted to oust coal as a source of energy. We saw the graph of oil as a contributor to our energy needs climb and

climb until it caught up and passed the contribution from coal.
It was assumed also that nuclear energy was just around the corner, and there was a great euphoria. But both assumptions were proved entirely wrong. Political events in the Middle East, with the insistence of the Arab countries on increased prices for their oil, destroyed the first assumption. The first nuclear energy programme, the Magnox programme, by anyone's standards was a failure. Whether one calls it a total failure is anyone's guess, but it did not make the contribution which was expected of it. The second programme is experiencing technological difficulties. It has already failed to keep to its time scale and fairly authoritative voices say that we cannot hope for nuclear power to make a significant contribution for another 20 to 25 years.

Mr. Tom Boardman: For the record, is it not right that as a result of the Magnox programme 10 per cent. of our electricity is being generated by nuclear power, which is no mean feat?

Mr. Evans: I do not dispute the percentage, but I dispute the original prognostications of what it could perform. Four years ago, by the same sort of luck, I drew the first motion in the Ballot and I introduced a similar debate to this one. That occasion was a Friday and the debate took a full day. I made these points on that occasion. The expectations of nuclear power have not been fulfilled and we must therefore look to our great indigenous resource of coal to bridge the gap. We treat the other energy sources as a magnificent bonus for Britain which will help us in all kinds of ways. But coal is the essential industry.
The next point in the motion concerns security. I trust I shall be forgiven if I deal with a particular case, because the example I shall give is a classic. We have closed pits that need not have been closed. All over Europe pits have been closed and illustrious gentlemen such as Dr. Thiemann have said they should be working and full manned. There will always be pit closures because of exhaustion of reserves, but in the current situation, of energy supply, and with improvements in technology overcoming physical obstacles in coal mining, there


can be little reason other than exhaustion for the closure of collieries. Any programme of proposed closures must stop immediately. Dr. Thiemann says that it is a gross stupidity that modern industrialised society has fallen into the oil trap, allowing the former relatively cheap price of oil to dictate our major decisions. He says:
Nowadays we would be only too happy if the pits were still in working order.
I have one such pit in my constituency at the Ogilvie Colliery at which there is a major dispute with the NCB. The board wants to close it on the alleged ground that the coal is only 33 per cent. saleable, whereas the men, having called in their own experts, say there are 14 million tons of top coking coal to be had. They charge the NCB with having worked dirty seams instead of trying for untapped virgin reserves. The colliery has been reprieved almost day by day and in these circumstances we cannot watch the morale of 630 men broken. The lodge committee says,
We say there is a future here and that if we are given the chance to go for untapped seams we could make this pit break even within six months. We do not accept that the cost would be enormous to open up virgin seams and go for 14 million tons of reserves. Britain, after all. needs that coal.
And that is true.
Quite simply, we would be working our way to the new seams, digging good quality coking coal all the way. This pit could break even in six months if the Coal Board would give us the chance.
The men, like most fair-minded miners, are not backward in admitting the drawbacks. They admit that the pit has lost £2½ million in five years, but they blame the board's bad planning and persistence in working dirty seams. The believe that it would be criminal to leave untouched reserves of coal which is in worldwide demand and which is now being imported. They claim that on the report of a top mining expert, by working only three of the eight untapped seams in the colliery, they could extend the life of the pit by at least 15 years.
I do not want to go too deeply into a particular case but I use it as an illustration of the way in which we must provide security for the men in the industry. If we are to do justice to the energy needs of Britain we must lift the shadow

of pit closures. I urge my hon. Friend the Minister of State to request my right hon. Friend to inquire into the circumstances of this colliery.
The last section of the motion urges the Government to ensure the security and expansion of the industry. If we are to ensure security the first thing to be considered is the labour force, because without miners all the reserves of coal we could ever want would stay in the ground. What do the men want? There have been settlements within the last three years and the miners have been accused of holding the nation to ransom. Any fair-minded person who knows the conditions in the industry and the pay scales will willingly admit that the men are by no means generously paid, even taking account of the latest settlement. Compared with miners in most other countries our men are very modestly paid. Compared to the aristocrats of the mining industry—the Polish miners—they are miserably paid.
It is not my province to say that the miners will put in any great wage demands. They have a very effective union which can do that. But if we are to ensure security, the relative rewards for this dangerous and arduous job must be adequate in relation to our current economic climate.
There are other things in the way of fringe benefits which are vital. Anybody who knows these men and the work they do—and I go down collieries in my constituency on working shifts—will agree that the pension these men are paid is utterly miserable. It is a degradation to demand this physical effort from the men and in return to give them that kind of reward. In view of the fatalities, the injuries, the general nature of the work, it is degrading. It is degrading for those who offer it as well as for those who are driven to accept it.
We should have a scheme for earlier retirement, particularly for underground workers. After early retirement there should be adequate retraining facilities and absorption into a different kind of industry, so that men who have spent heir lives below ground—in my area, a thousand yards below ground for most of their time—can at least have the benefit of working in another industry and enjoying eight or perhaps 10 years in more civilised conditions.
We need to introduce better protection of dependants, particularly of the dependants of those who have suffered from pneumoconiosis. In the Welsh coalfield one can find hundreds of tragic widows whose husbands suffered heavy percentages of pneumoconiosis but who died of bronchitis or heart failur because of the strain on their heart. Such widows receive nothing, not even a load of concessionary coal. It is time the system was overhauled.
My hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda (Mr. Jones) introduced a Private Member's Bill a couple of years ago, a very simple Bill which the Tory Government threw out. They had every right to do so, but it left a bad taste. All we were saying in it was that a man's percentage of disability should be recognised in the claim of dependants for the benefits he would have received if he had remained alive until retirement age.
I do not want to go into that matter too deeply, because I have been speaking for too long. I come to the position of the National Coal Board. If we are to ensure expansion, the board is the vehicle for doing it. It needs a revised set of terms of reference. It is not enough to say, as we used to say, "First, you have to show regard for the public interest, and, secondly, you have to ensure viability and profit." The two things are incompatible. We need a totally new approach, acknowledging that energy is a social need, that without it the whole of manufacturing industry collapses, and that therefore we pay for the energy because the cost can be offset through manufacturing industries. Even at the worst, adopting that attitude will in all probability prove highly profitable.
We need massive investment. How can a board starved of research and development money carry out investigations into new technologies, investigations into matters I have already mentioned, such as fluidised bed combustion, liquefaction and gasification? How can we have the kind of technology used underground in Russia for safety purposes, for example? Information about such matters is easily available to anyone who wants to read it. We cannot do any of those things without massive investment. We must tell Governments of all kinds, "If you want the returns that you could have from our being a net energy exporting country,

you must adopt a rational and compassionate attitude towards the industry."
Britain has the good fortune to have discovered oil and gas in the North Sea, and there seems to be an exciting future for oil in the Celtic Sea. We command vast reserves of coal. In front of us lie the prizes. They can be grasped. With the right kind of governmental help and encouragement, the men engaged in the coal industry can forge the will and the co-operation to grasp them.

5.5 p.m.

Mr. Alec Woodall: It gives me great pleasure to follow my good friend the hon. Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Evans). I believe that he would expect me to refer to my very good friend of many years' standing, my predecessor, Alan Beaney. I was aware that Alan Beaney was very well respected by right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the House. What I was not aware of was the tremendous affection for him felt by all, by servants of the House as well as by right hon. and hon. Members. I understand that he was known as the kindly Member by all who knew him. I congratulate the House on its adequate description, for Alan Beaney is the kindest man I know. My most gratifying duty to date has been to convey to him and to Mrs. Beaney many messages of good wishes and hopes for a long and happy retirement for them both.
Representing, as I do, the mining constituency of Hemsworth, it seems appropriate that I should make my maiden speech during this debate on the coal mining industry. In Hemsworth we have nine active pits and a central area workshops establishment. One of the pits is the famous Ferrymoor Riddings Mine, which in March 1971 set up a European output record of 364 cwt per man-shift, which is about seven times the national average. That record still stands.
In the Hemsworth area we have enjoyed for many years in the brass band world the friendly rivalry between Frickley and Grimethorpe collieries, which between them have for many years held the championship trophy of the British coalfields. While in the world of music, I must not forget to mention the famous Thurnscoe male


voice choir, which draws most of its members from Hickleton Main, and is well-known all over the country at music festivals.
There is a similar rivalry between those three pits and my own, South Kirkby, in first aid. At present Grimethorpe seems to have the edge, in as much as it has won the famous Mitchell Hedges Trophy, the blue riband of first aid.
There are times when collieries receive notoriety for which they have no wish, and which they do not deserve. That happened at my colliery in 1935, when an explosion claimed 10 lives, including that of my brother. We suffered an explosion at Barnburgh colliery in 1956, and at the same colliery in 1941 there was a massive roof fall in which several men were buried. There was a similar incident at its nextdoor neighbour, Hickleton Main, where my predecessor worked. In the 1960s a further massive roof fall occurred there. Alan Beaney's son was then the captain of one of the colliery rescue teams which battled to rescue the men. It was an operation for which they received the Daily Herald award for industrial heroism. The citation for that award is still carried proudly on the Hickleton Main union branch banner. Such incidents happen almost every day in coal mining life.
These are the things which bind miners together into a brotherhood, unseen, unspoken and sometimes defying description. Nevertheless it is always there when it is needed. Hemsworth is a typical mining area, an area of which James Nicholson said in the Financial Times on 14th March, in an article on the Yorkshire Region:
It needs new jobs, new science-based industry turning out high value products which will offer better profits and therefore better wages and better working conditions.
This is true. We have in the Hemsworth area a male unemployment rate of 9·2 per cent. as against 3·8 per cent. for Yorkshire and Humberside and 3·6 per cent. for the rest of the country. Included in the Hemsworth figure are 27 boys under the age of 18 who have probably never had a job since they left one of our famous comprehensive high schools.
We are too dependent upon one large industry. My good friends and colleagues of the Hemsworth Rural District Council

were well aware of this when in 1948 they did the spadework and invited the Prime Minister, then the President of the Board of Trade, to open the Langthwaite Grange estate at South Kirkby. What my friends did not foresee was the advent of the motorway juggernaut. We are situated in the centre of the motorway box and desperately need an improvement to the entrance to the estate. We also greatly need a road-widening scheme for the approach road, especially the county road C4, from Moorthorpe to Bamsdale Bar. This road widening is particularly necessary on the stretch known as Minsthorpe Lane. The widening of the Minsthorpe railway bridge is also a priority because the massive vehicles coming from the motorways are causing havoc in the area.
A further environmental problem is subsidence. This has prevented some of the local authorities in my area, notably Dearne Urban District Council, from availing themselves of the housing improvement scheme.
In case hon. and right hon. Members are getting a jaundiced view of a mining area let me list a few of our achievements. In the Cudworth area we have one of the finest, if not the finest, sporting complexes in the North of England. The money was raised by local effort supplemented by ministerial grant. Naturally, it was named after Cudworth's most famous daughter, and is known as the Dorothy Hyman centre.
Only three weeks ago in my own Hemsworth urban area my good friend of many years, Councillor Jim Starling who has served the Hemsworth UDC for 32 years, officially opened the new sporting complex at Fitzwilliam. This is a joint urban district council and CISWO enterprise. It contains a new cricket pavilion and is situated a cricket ball's throw from the home of our most famous son, the world's No. 1 batsman, Geoff Boycott. Hon. and right hon. Gentlemen may be interested to know that I am wearing the Geoff Boycott benefit tie. This year is his benefit year. I am assured that I can have as many as I can manage to order at £1·25 each.
Before leaving Fitzwilliam I would like to mention the removal of the dirt stack at the closed Hemsworth colliery site. Hemsworth UDC and the West Riding County Council agreed upon plans for its


removal, after which it was hoped to landscape the area and lay out a golf course. Unfortunately, the contents of the stack have been found to be ideal material for motorway construction. Extraction has gone on and has delayed the plan. The Wakefield Metropolitan District Council has agreed to adopt the plan, which is becoming more urgent as more and more golf enthusiasts are taking up the game and having to travel to Barnsley, Pontefract and Wakefield to indulge in their favourite sport.
These are matters which mean a lot to my constituents. It is necessary to mention them if for no other reason than to point out to hon. Members the new image of the miner. We are no longer a cloth cap and muffler community interested only in running dogs and racing pigeons, although we still have these. The modern miner is a skilled technologist, not only a man who knows how to work with the new and sophisticated equipment, but a man who invents, builds and operates this vast and complicated machinery. He is a man who is proud of his calling and of his skill.
It is significant that the week before last miners in the Doncaster area, part of which is in my constituency, achieved an output 1 per cent. above last October's level. That was a remarkable achievement so soon after a month's stoppage. The miner is tremendously loyal to his comrades, his country, his Sovereign and this Government. He is proving it by his efforts. He wants to get this country back on to and well along the road to complete economic recovery.

5.16 p.m.

Mr. Michael Roberts: It is perhaps appropriate that it is my privilege, coming from a city whose success was built on the export of coal, to congratulate the hon. Member for Hemsworth (Mr. Woodall) on his speech. He has spoken fluently on a subject he knows intimately. I am sure that the House looks forward to many further contributions from him.
I was particularly pleased that the hon. Member should have made reference to the changed image of the miner. When, 25 to 30 years ago, I used to play rugby for a South Wales mining village, the miners then used their brawn, skill and courage wielding a pick and shovel.

Today, as the hon. Member has said, the miner is concerned with the use of sophisticated machinery. In many ways he is a skilled engineer.
That has been the story of the mining industry in the past 20 years. In a process of mechanisation which has gone on over two decades 90 per cent. of coal production is due to power-loading and 80 per cent. of the faces are equipped with power support. Great increases in productivity have been achieved by the skill of the miners and also by the expenditure of great sums of money. Each year £60 million to £70 million is spent on capital equipment. Although the 1960s saw the closure of many mines and meant redundancy for 200,000 miners, production was maintained and productivity soared.
Today productivity is static, and has been for some years. We have reached a plateau of productivity. Output per man shift has become static. The productivity of our mining force is not as great as that of Western Germany, for example. In the past few years the emphasis in the mining industry has been on wages. There has been a determined effort to ensure that the miner returns to the top of the wages league. In the near future, as the hon. Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Evans) mentioned, there will, quite rightly, be determined efforts to improve the position of miners' pensions, to introduce—

Mr. Fred Evans: The hon. Gentleman must not distort my words. I did not say that there is a determination. I said that it must be borne in mind that a comparison of miners' wages in Britain with those of miners in other countries showed that the wages of our miners were still modest. However, I said that I would not argue that case because it was a matter for the NUM. I am sorry for the length of this intervention in the hon. Gentleman's speech, but he also mentioned production. He must be aware, if he has read the relevant literature, that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Energy is looking forward to a production of 120 million to 130 million tons of coal within four years.

Mr. Roberts: I had no intention of distorting anyone's words. I was merely expressing my view—which I thought the hon. Gentleman would also hold, but,


clearly, does not—that there will be a determined effort to improve the pensions position of the miners, to introduce new health safeguards, and to give improved holidays and better conditions. These will no doubt be the subject of negotiation in future, along with pay claims.
Miners in the past few years have naturally demanded that the debate should focus on the question of what the miner is to receive. But now there is a much greater awareness of the importance of coal. It is no longer fashionable to suggest that we would welcome the day when all collieries would close and no miner would be asked to go down and work in the dreadful conditions which still exist in some of our mines today. It is recognised that coal will play an important part in the country's future.
Thus, in addition to the discussion of wages and benefits, there is no doubt that the nation is also increasingly concerned to get a better return for the capital it has invested, is investing and is being called upon to invest. There is little doubt that a higher productivity potential exists, and we much ask ourselves how it can be achieved.
Of course there is room for further mechanisation. There has already been reference to increased investment. There is need, for example, to improve man riding so that the men are carried to the coal face instead of having to walk. If they are carried there, they arrive less fatigued and spend longer at the coal face.
Most important is that there should be better utilisation of the existing equipment. The effective running time of the mechanical coal cutters, referred to as sophisticated machinery, is 130 minutes per shift, and a volume of opinion in the mining industry suggests that this could be increased to about 180 minutes. If this were done, it would in itself lead to a substantial increase in productivity. Indeed, the increase could be enormous and could transform the industry.
The nation, recognising the difficulties that the miners have experienced, but recognising also the very great investment which has been put into the industry and the investment that is being called for, wants the maximum utilisation of the

mining equipment which is being invested. Traditionally, the mining industry was built up on a piece work system. About six years ago, this was replaced by a day rate system and it can be argued that the introduction of the day rate system has led to less local industrial trouble. Nevertheless, it has disadvantages in that there is not quite the incentive to produce which existed under the piece work system. There is urgent need for the NUM and the NCB to achieve greater incentives to the maximum use of the sophisticated machinery in the mines. If this is done, it will ensure a great future for the mining industry.

5.25 p.m.

Mr. Emlyn boson: Of all communities I have known, the mining communities are, save for the agricultural communities, the most closely knit, socially and economically.
Coal production is now 132 million tons per annum, representing 39 per cent. of our energy. That tonnage of production is being achieved already and is not, as was suggested by the hon. Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Evans), a target for the future. When one considers the part which coal plays, I was amazed when the Conservative Government took on the miners head on in the strike which led to the General Election. It was a lunatic thing to have done in any event.
The problems in the mining industry seem to me to stem from a number of economic, social and psychological reasons. This country's industrial predominance at the turn of the century and its continuation as a very prosperous industrial country were based on cheap energy. I do not think that we have ever sufficiently appreciated the importance of cheap energy to a dominant industrial economy. In fact, coal was followed by oil, which came in very cheaply, and we were thoughtless in our attitude towards it.
I was one of the few people in the 1964–70 Parliaments to oppose the policy of run down of the coal mines. There was, indeed, a powerful coal lobby in this House between 1964 and 1970, but it had precious little effect. During that period, the country was thoughtless, by and large, about future provision of energy. It seemed to me then, as I said often enough, a matter of common


sense to realise that the Arabs would grasp the fact one day that they could hold the Western world to ransom simply by squeezing the oil pipeline. In that context, it seemed to me foolish to run down our coal industry. I do not think that the more articulate members of the last Labour Government, and certainly not hon. Members from mining areas, ever tried to defend that policy in those days. However, it is water under the bridge.
The motion refers to the great importance of coal as a source of energy for the country in the future, and that is what we are concerned about. But once again as a nation we are counting our chickens before they hatch. We are congratulating ourselves on and are looking forward to a bonanza with oil from the North Sea and the Celtic Sea before any of the oil reaches our shores, before there is even true appreciation of the risks which under-sea oilfields imply as opposed to oilfields under the sands of the desert, for example, and also before we have any appreciation of the total cost of producing oil from under the sea compared with the cost of extracting it from, say, Saudi Arabia.
I am told that the total cost of producing a barrel of oil from the North Sea will be about nine or ten times the cost of producing it from under the Saudi Arabian desert. All these things we should be considering as a background to our energy policy, and we must not make the same mistake as we did in the 1960s and earlier—take energy for granted. We must not, for example, take it for granted that we shall have cheap oil in future because we have struck oil in the North and Celtic Seas. In this context the future of our coal industry becomes important.
We know that the coal is here and that we have skills already developed to maximise the production of coal. The discovery of the Selby coal seam presages the probable finding of seams in other parts of the country which might rival it. I am told that the Selby Seam is of such thickness as to lead one to believe that the man-shift production for the country might go up to 10 tons as opposed to the present 2½ tons, which is low. It is low partially because we are still working deep mines with thin seams.
The hon. Member for Caerphilly mentioned the coal mining communities which are so closely knit in areas where seams are being worked out. This creates many social problems for the future.
I wish to dwell on three things which need to be done. First, the morale in the industry has been low for years. The record of absenteeism in certain coal mining areas has been bad because the morale of the miners has been low, particularly in areas where there has been a large number of pit closures and it was thought that the whole industry was being run down.
The first requirement for a healthy industry is a carefully worked out energy policy that balances the risks of drilling for deep sea oil against the risks of deep mining. We should aim at increased coal production. At present it stands at 132 million tons per annum. Reference has been made to plans in the United States by 1985 to put up production from the present 550 million tons to 1,000 million tons, and we must try for an increase in our country. That might mean that the 39 per cent. of our energy coming from coal will remain the same or go lower, but to keep anything like this percentage it will be necessary considerably to increase coal production. The first requirement is a sensible energy policy which makes use of our available skills and assures the miners of a future for their industry.
The second requirement is to pay attention to our social policy. For many years I advised the National Coal Board in my professional capacity on many accidents that occurred in the mines. I often had to visit mines and to crawl through low faces which had been the scenes of accidents, liability for which the NCB wanted to fight. I had been brought up in an agricultural community, and it was a shock to see the conditions which existed in some mines. Most people have no idea of the conditions which prevail at coal faces. The time has come for an experiment in total insurance against accidents in this industry which might in time be adopted by all industry.
Why should a man, before he is entitled to damages for serious injury, have to prove that his employers have been guilty of a breach of statutory duty or that another employee has been negligent?


Why should a widow have to prove that the NCB or an employee has been negligent in causing the death of her husband? I remember a case some years ago in which I was led by the Lord Chancellor when we were appearing for the NCB. A volunteer had been sent into the mine to try to repair a tender roof. The manager of the mine had taken infinite care and so had all the other safety workers. Neverthless, there was an additional roof fall and the man was killed. I regret to say that the NCB won that case and the widow got nothing. This was perfectly legal under the 1911 Act, which contained a provision to the effect that if it were not reasonable and practicable to prevent a breach of statutory duty, that was a total defence.

The Under-Secretary of State for Energy (Mr. Alexander Eadic): The Labour Government rectified that.

Mr. Hooson: That was rectified, as it should have been. It is surprising that it was not rectified between 1945 and 1951. I hope that the Under-Secretary of State, instead of taking pride in something that happened years too late, will do something now and bring in total insurance.

Mr. Gwilym Roberts: Nationalise the insurance companies.

Mr. Hooson: Nationalised insurance has nothing to do with it. It is to be hoped that the insurance companies will have money to pay out. If they are nationalised they will not, if past experience is anything to go by. But we need the change in social policy which I have suggested.
The third requirement is inquiry into the set up of the NCB and the administration of the coal industry. It is far too centralised and remote. There is a great deal to be said in the present climate for giving far greater power to coal areas and to the pits. I am attracted by the BP solution as a reasonable compromise between private investment and public control. I should like consideration to be given to the suitability of that system for the coal industry in certain areas. The feeling in the coal mining areas is of a remote juggernaut in the form of the NCB, tucked away in Hobart House in London and other centres. We

should consider—28 years after the nationalisation of the coal mines—whether the form of that nationalisation is right for an industry which we can reasonably expect to expand greatly in the future.

5.37 p.m.

Dr. Edmund Marshall: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Evans) on his success in being able to introduce his motion on this important topic. I also congratulate my geographical neighbour, my hon. Friend the Member for Hemsworth (Mr. Woodall), who, in his maiden speech, referred to his constituency and left the House in no doubt about his deep roots in his constituency and the close ties he has with all parts of the community there. I look forward to many years of close collaboration with him.
Both sides of the House are aware of the importance of the future of coal to the country, both from the economic and the strategic points of view. I will concentrate the attention of the House on the area close to my constituency, which is generally called the Selby area in the North Yorkshire coalfield. There is no doubt that it holds the whole key to the future development of coal mining in Britain and, therefore, to the future of our national energy supplies.
The area extends west of the River Ouse and north of the town of Selby. That does not necessarily mean that there will be mining under the town of Selby. The use of the description "the Selby area" gives people who live in the town the wrong impression, that the National Coal Board intends to sink pits in close proximity to the town. All the test bores initiated by the National Coal Board have been put down in the rural areas surrounding Selby—namely, in part of the new Selby district which is now the local authority area taking in a large part of my constituency.
Within that district the Coal Board has conducted test boring on a dozen sites and has discovered thicknesses of coal in the Barnsley seam, greater than anything discovered anywhere else in the United Kingdom to date. The thickest part of the seam is at Ryther near to the confluence of the Rivers Ouse and Wharfe. At depths of 340 yards the board discovered coal to a thickness of


11 ft 4 ins—far greater than anything we have experienced in this country before. There is every reason to believe that this thickness of coal extends over a very wide area, going perhaps into what has been the East Riding of Yorkshire and which will be within the new county of North Yorkshire.
There is great enthusiasm in the coal board about these discoveries—an enthusiasm shared, I am glad to say, by people in the locality. There have been some worries about the possible environmental effects of the extension of coal mining in the area, but there has also been a new feeling about the national importance of these finds. The people in the area are willing to support development which is vital to the interests of the nation as a whole.
The National Coal Board, for its part, is doing great work in allaying the fears about environmental matters. The board is going out of its way to keep in touch with the locality. A newsletter called "NCB Selby Newsletter" has been circulated throughout the area, explaining to people in the locality the ways in which the traditional dirt, dust and danger which so often surround coal mining can be kept to an absolute minimum. The newsletter points out that by the use of modern mining techniques and by using pillars preserved in the seams the minimum of hardship can be caused in terms of subsidence. Where there is subsidence the land will go down over a wide area much at the same time and, if difficulties are caused in respect of land drainage on the surface, the National Coal Board is ready to compensate those in the area.
I should like to deal with part of the motion which asks the Government to indicate their plans for the future of the coal mining industry, by particular reference to their plans for the Selby district. I have already mentioned the considerable enthusiasm in the locality, and indeed throughout the country, about the extension of coal mining in the Selby area, but as yet there are no definite plans. The newsletter to which I have referred begins by saying,
There is still no firm plan to sink a coal mine in the Selby district. … if the board decides that one of the ways to keep up coal production in this country is to replace dwindling output on the western edge of

the Yorkshire coalfield by new capacity to the east, then the Selby district mine becomes a distinct possibility. Meaningful discussions must then take place with government—both national and local—so that the project can be properly co-ordinated to meet local, regional and national needs.
I hope that in this debate the Government spokesman will be able to give some encouragement to the National Coal Board to go ahead with this development, and to do so quickly. The time scale indicated by the board in regard to development in the Selby area gives the impression that a period of two years will be taken up in dealing with the detailed planning aspects and that the sinking and equipping aspects will take another five or six years. Therefore, a total of ten years could elapse between the go-ahead for the mine and its reaching full production. In the present national situation this is far too long a time scale and there should be a speedier development.
In the context of development I should like information to be more readily available about where manpower for the pits is to come from. There are no skilled mineworkers in the area concerned, and obviously in future they will have to be brought into the area from other mining areas—from areas in which pits have been closed in recent years. I am thinking in this respect of the area of Thorne in my constituency where the colliery was closed, amid much controversy, in 1956. In that area are many skilled mineworkers who could readily commute on a daily basis to pits in the Selby area.
How will coal extracted from Selby be used? Will it be used for electricity generation? It is true that there are large power stations close by—at Ferry-bridge, Eggborough and Drax. In this context it would be useful to have more up-to-date information about the construction of the Drax "B" power station. If coal from the Selby area were used for electricity generation at Drax, it would be feasible that water transport could be used to convey the coal from pit to power station. In respect of the other power stations I have mentioned, rail transport would be more suitable—although when we look at the map we see that it would be necessary to construct more new railway links to allow the coal to go from the area in which


the pits will be situated to power station areas.
There must be a more fully integrated approach within the area to relate housing and transport needs to the possibilities of colliery development. This is all part of the planning process under the new North Yorkshire County Council and it needs to be thoroughly examined. There are great prospects in the area based on these new discoveries of coal, and they are a vital key to future national prosperity.

5.48 p.m.

Mr. Jim Lester: When I saw the motion tabled by the hon. Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Fred Evans), I thought that perhaps he was being a little mischievous and firing a shot across the Government's bows to provoke them into announcing their intentions about the mining industry. I know from my experience in local government that what caused many problems in the mining industry was the 1966 White Paper, published by the then Labour Government. I have spent seven years in local government trying to overcome the problems caused by that document. I am delighted to be able to say that in Nottinghamshire our efforts were successful.
I welcome the chance to intervene in a debate on the coal industry, because in my constituency it is a major employer and a major ratepayer. I have lived in Nottinghamshire for the whole of my life, and mining and things to do with mining are almost second nature to me. Therefore, I have considerable sympathy for the industry, and I hope in this Parliament to specialise in it to some degree.
I recognise that the national energy situation puts coal in an entirely new and a much more important position. If we have learnt anything in past years, it is that we must in future have a much more balanced energy policy among nuclear energy, oil, gas, coal, and any other form of energy that may come forward as a result of scientific and technological development. I have in mind, for instance, solar energy. The country will be well advised to seek a balanced energy policy and to keep its constituent parts carefully in check. We have learnt to our cost that circumstances change rapidly, even in the best planning circles.
It is significant that world coal reserves are 10 times greater than those of oil, and it is equally significant that the East Midlands plays a dominant part in producing much of the country's energy from coal at a much lower cost than from any other fuel. My concern is that it should continue to do so within the balanced policy that I suggest.
Between 1947 and 1967, the East Midlands coalfield produced a £200 million profit after charges. The hon. Member for Caerphilly is against profits. However, a profit of that kind is not a bad measure of the success of the coalfield, and that is a view that was shared by the National Coal Board and by the miners concerned.
I ask the Minister to consider in the short term this vexed problem of productivity. The Wilberforce Committee virtually commanded the NCB and the National Union of Mineworkers to achieve a productivity agreement. I understand that at least six attempts have been made, but that such an agreement has still not yet come to fruition. I hope that the Minister will be in a position now to discover what are the areas of disagreement.
As the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Hooson) said, productivity is the key in the short term, and I like to think that it will be possible to work towards a national minimum wage and the nearest local productivity agreement possible. My hon. Friend the Member for Bosworth (Mr. Butler) has made that suggestion in the past. A productivity agreement is meaningless unless the individual miner can see the productivity in his district and in his own pit. What is more, it should be shared by everyone connected with production, from the coal face worker right up to the clerks in the office, if necessary, and it should be tied recognisably to a product in a district towards which everyone can work.
Our real concern in this debate is the future of the industry and the direction that it should take, and I am a little concerned to read in the Press Government comments on the uneconomic pits and whether such pits should be closed. "Uneconomic" can be taken in many ways. If price changes make a pit no longer uneconomic, there is no problem. However, having travelled extensively in


Wales and Durham, I recognise that there are social reasons for keeping some pits open, reasons which have to be taken into account, where it may be uneconomic to put a whole community out of work if there are not alternative jobs.
All these matters have to be costed, and I recognise that the human problems are considerable. However, the risk of possible closure is much worse without a real attempt by a local authority, backed by national policies, to widen the industrial base of its area. The problem varies from area to area, of course. There are places where it is difficult to widen the industrial base. But there is an area in Nottinghamshire where, within the space of two years of a pit closing, whole areas of new industry and new shops have grown up because there has been a willingness on the part of local authorities—many of them Conservative-controlled—to act in the interests of the people. When he was Prime Minister, my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition paid a visit—I believe the first ever visit of a Prime Minister—to this small area of Nottinghamshire.

Mr. Adam Butler: My hon. Friend has been discussing uneconomic pits. I am sure that he will agree that there is an enormous difference between pits in the Nottinghamshire area, where there is alternative industry, and pits in other parts of the country where coal mining is the sole industry. A different situation exists in the latter areas, and my hon. Friend must apply his mind to that problem, too.

Mr. Lester: I accept what my hon. Friend says. That situation exists even in Nottinghamshire. In the north of the county there is no easy possibility of new industry. I hope that that sort of situation will be taken into account in deciding whether a pit is uneconomic if there is no other industry available. In communities of that kind the thought that sooner or later a pit will close and the community will be left without work is very worrying.
What really matters is how quickly and with what energy we tackle the problem of trying to make areas of that kind less uneconomic by putting in roads and the necessary infrastructure to try to develop new industry. If we are to maintain the

132 million tons production that we have at present, I hope that the Minister will consider the level of investment that will be required in the medium term, allowing for exhaustion and uneconomic closures. Pits producing 1 million tons annually are eating into reserves at a tremendous rate. Clearly, we shall need new investment if we are to maintain that level of production, let alone expand it.
I hope that decisions on that new investment will fall into three areas. The first is the national area. In my constituency there is a great deal of mining engineering. I hope that automation and better tools for the existing miner and the existing pit will play a greater part in current research. I shall welcome any statement that the Minister cares to make about current plans for that research. Having been down a deep old pit such as Harworth, one quickly sees the difference when visiting Bevercotes, which is one of the most advanced technology pits in the country, and even that has had its problems. The great investment in automation and new ideas is there to be seen. It is to be encouraged and welcomed.
The second area of investment relates to a local problem. It is how quickly we can expect a decision by the Central Electricity Generating Board on West Burton "B" power station in the Trent Valley. This project has been mooted for some time. It would give a tremendous boost to the confidence of the coal industry if a decision were made fairly soon and in favour of coal as the basic fuel. The proposed station is close to the coalfields of North Nottinghamshire and especially close to new pits producing the kind of coal that it can burn. I do not for a moment recommend that coal should be the only fuel—I hope that there will be a second capability for oil or gas—but a decision of that kind would be a welcome boost for the future of the coal industry.
The third area concerns the need for the rapid development of the Selby field, which has tremendous reserves of good coal in extremely wide seams. The only point raised in the debate on that issue is the environmental point. Because of the planning consents that have been given, we have seen how carefully we can control the environment in terms of both new pits and power stations.
I hope that the safeguards that can be ensured through the planning procedures will satisfy any environmentalist about the balance between development in the past, which traditionally we have looked upon as a scar, because it has been a scar, and development now since planning procedures. Recently, some European journalists visited Nottinghamshire. Without any prompting they made some flattering remarks about the landscaping and environment where we had phased in the Cotgrave pit and the Ratcliffe on Soar power station. These things can be done.
Equally, we live in times very different from those which many hon. Members will recall of the terrible scars of pit tips which polluted not only towns, but milk and everything else. It was very moving for me to hear a Labour councillor on the Nottinghamshire County Council, a lady of long experience, literally with tears in her eyes, speak of sheep grazing on a tip that had dominated her life until the last five years. For her it was a significant change that that great ugly scar, which had polluted the town's milk, washing, and people's lives, should have become a gentle hill with sheep grazing upon it. That is something that we can show the environmentalists. If we have the will, we can not only turn back the clock and repair the scars, but make sure that they do not occur in future.
We should accept that the ideal for the future of the coal industry is mixed economic areas. I accept that this is a longterm view—a 1990 view. With structure planning, we should work to that end so that the National Coal Board competes with a variety of industry and thereby presents a choice not only to the people who live in the mining areas, but to their sons, who will thus not necessarily have to go away if they do not wish to work in a mine. This is the better background for the greater rewards for which we should strive.
I hope that future research—indeed, research for the Selby field—will be closer to the automated mine and the long-term view of how we extract coal. We could never do without the miner's skill and knowledge, but we could probably manage without his muscle. We can

probably arrange things so that there is not the unacceptable risk of injury and danger to health about which many people feel so strongly.
Mines without miners can be considered in two ways—I mean "mines without miners" in the kindest possible way. We want miners, but we do not want the unacceptable risks to them. We want machinery to take those risks. This is the opportunity, if we are to develop new coalfields, for new investment into ways by which that can be achieved. I hope that hon. Members on both sides of the House will look favourably on this kind of research programme so that not only may we see mines without miners, but we may work towards producing energy without extraction.
I hope that we shall hear answer to some of these questions. I am sure that with a research programme properly linked to economic circumstances and balanced with other fuels, coal will continue to play a major part in meeting the country's energy requirements.

6.4 p.m.

Mr. Richard Kelley: There is no doubt that coal ought to play an important part in our future energy requirements.
We should be grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Evans) for this motion which a depleted House is here to debate. It is an important motion because it deals with the security and expansion of the coal mining industry, the importance of which has been stressed by several hon. Members.
I do not want to deal with the technical aspects of the industry. I should not presume to try to tell my grandmother how to suck eggs. I do not know a great deal about the new coalfields, for that matter—probably less than my hon. Friend the Member for Goole (Dr. Marshall), who lives on the doorstep of this huge bonanza at Selby which the coal industry has before it.
I live in a mining village and I first went to work in a colliery about 56 years ago. I have lived in a colliery village, barring the few years I spent in the Army, for 56 years. Therefore, I know something about how men who work in the pits live. That is what I want to talk about.
During the election campaign I went to an important mining village close to a mine that produces more than 1¼ million tons of coal a year. There are five large pits in my constituency, all producing more than 1 million tons of coal a year. In this important mining village I found that of 87 junior officials who worked at the pit, only one had a son who had followed him into the mining industry. Those officials were all family men. They had dedicated their lives to the industry to such an extent that they had attended technical colleges and become qualified technical people in the industry. As I said, of the 87 officials, only one had produced a son who had gone into the mining industry.
In my early days in the mining industry and in the Labour movement I recall singing about the "dark satanic mills". To some extent, we now have the dark satanic hills. I am not talking about the hills of Makerfield, but about the environment surrounding the communities on whom we depend to produce the energy required by this nation. More than 70 per cent. of our energy requirements will be derived from coal before we get any great advantage from North Sea oil. This is an alarming prospect when we think that coal production is still labour intensive.
We had a wonderful dream about underground gasification at Bevercoates, about machines crawling into seams of coal 8ft. thick and, without the touch of human hand except pressing a button, pulling out thousands of tons of coal per shift. That has gone up in smoke. Lord Robens was a fool to think that this was possible without any previous knowledge of the difficulties that the kind of machine that could do that work was likely to experience in an uncharted area. We cannot regulate by statute the strata beyond a certain point in mining. Therefore, Lord Robens was a fool to consider that Bevercoates was the answer to the manpower problem in mining. Everyone in any responsible position in the mining industry in the managerial side took notice of him because he was the Chairman of the National Coal Board.
What has happened to Bevercoates? We do not hear anything about it, simply because it was an attempt to get coal without men. Several hon. Members have said that we cannot get coal without

men. Therefore, men must be attracted to the industry. In order to attract them to the industry we must allow them to live in the kind of civilised conditions that 20th century man is entitled to expect.
A miner's fundamental task is to destroy the architectural structure of nature. Nature forms seams of coal hundreds, even thousands, of feet below ground. Nature places rock in certain positions and the rock has almost to be torn down by human hands in order to get at the seams of coal that nature has placed in the most uncompromising positions. Therefore, the miner's job is simply to tear down what nature has created.
Because of the very nature of his job, the miner requires some compensations. He requires to live in a decent environment. When he comes out of the dark, subterranean passage in which he has been working for six hours or more and breathes God's fresh air, he is entitled to see green fields with cows grazing in them, beautiful gardens, and nice, well painted cottages. But what does he see? He sees his wife's washing on the line and he knows that when he gets home she is going to play hell with him about the muck which the pit chimneys have created and about the dust which has blown off the slag heaps—I am talking not about slag heaps in Ince-in-Makerfield, but the slag heaps in colliery villages. Those are the conditions in which miners have to live.
If we want to get the coal that has been said in the debate to be so important, we have to create conditions in the mining areas which will attract miners. When I went to work at Hatfield Maine it was called a "rolly off" for tramps. A "rolly off" is where a fellow gets off the line. It was called a "rolly off" for tramps because only people who could not get a job anywhere else went to work at Hatfield Maine. We tried to make a village of it. I was on the local council for 25 years and we built streets and put up lamps and tried to create a respectable standard in the village.
A headmaster said, "You will never get anybody to settle here until they start to bury the dead here". We did not have a cemetery, although we have one now. My hon. Friend the Member for Goole (Dr. Marshall) knows about it,


The provision of a cemetery was supposed to help to get the community established, but in the cemetery one finds the names of men who were killed at the coal face. They may have been buried under a fall of roof, had their legs torn off, or died as a result of an accident involving coal cutting machinery, or from pneumoconiosis.
When the widows turn away from the graves and look towards the village where they live, they see the grey, dark walls of the houses. Better conditions must be created in these villages. We must spend money not only on machinery to get the coal, but on improving the places where the men who get the coal and who man the machines have to continue living.
Miners are family men. Having regard to all the modern technology and propaganda about family limitations, they have what are reasonably large families. The miners breed boys who will become the men who will man the coal mining industry of the future. But, not one of the miners I know—and I still live in the miner's cottage to which I went 43 years ago—wants to persuade his son to go into the pit. The miners say about their sons, "The sooner they get out of this place, the better".
I had the honour and privilege of opening a leisure centre at Woodlands. I said that it was unique in its concept for a mining village and that it opened up great potentialities for the area which, incidentally, is around Brodsworth Colliery, from which Buckingham Palace gets its coal, or used to get it. Between 2,500 and 2,800 men are employed there. The leisure centre will offer great opportunities for youth. We heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Hemsworth (Mr. Woodall), in a maiden speech, about Dorothy Hyams, who achieved athletic records despite great difficulties. She had few prospects of improving her athletic prowess in the village of Thurnscoe, but nevertheless she did.
I should like to see the sort of leisure centre that I have mentioned provided in every coal mining village of any size. I should also like to see other amenities, such as comprehensive schools. However, for too long mining has been regarded as an industry that would soon

be entirely discarded. We were told that we could do without it. Even Labour Ministers talked about the great North Sea gas bonanza and the oil to come from the North Sea and Celtic Sea, and all other fuels that it was said would be substitutes for coal. Therefore there was a rundown of the social stature of the mining communities. Money was not to be spent on roads, schools or housing in mining areas.
Now we must reverse that process. We must think not only about machines in the pits to get the coal, but about inducing men to settle in the mining communities, to man the machines that will get the coal that the nation needs now and that it will continue to need for a long time ahead.

6.18 p.m.

Mr. Adam Butler: We are all grateful to the hon. Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Evans) for moving the motion. There is normally a certain amount of all party accord on this subject. There are on this side of the House fewer hon. Members who represent coal mining seats than on the other, but I hope that we shall make up in quality what we might lack in quantity.
The hon. Gentleman suggested that the debate would give an opportunity to put formative ideas to the Government, and I welcome that opportunity. Inevitably one echoes some thoughts already expressed, but there will be no harm in that.
First, however, I must set the record straight, at least to a small extent. The hon. Member for Caerphilly said that his Government between 1964 and 1970 had not looked after coal mining as well as they might, but he went on to criticise the Conservative Government for "putting in jeopardy", I think his words were, the whole future of the industry and our whole energy situation by their attitude to the miners' strike. But what he did not do—it was a significant omission—was to make any reference to the Coal Industry Act brought in by the Conservative Government. That Act was no mean thing. It introduced a total of £1,100 million into the industry, partly to write off debt in an attempt to make the industry viable again, and to provide encouragement for expansion and security, as the motion asks.
In my constituency what the Conservative Government did during six years was greatly welcomed and recognised by the miners. It is not without significance that in the last election a large number of mining seats—not just those which were won by Conservatives but some which were held by Labour—showed a swing to the Conservatives, against the trend.
A number of hon. Members have referred to the risks inherent in mining, particularly working underground. At the time of all wage negotiations this factor is brought up, but it was particularly in evidence at the time of the Wilberforce settlement and above all during the last dispute. On each occasion the public has been rightly moved to learn not only about the conditions in which miners work, but, much more important, about the risks to health and limb which they continue to face. It is right that earnings should take those factors into account.
The hon. Member for Don Valley (Mr. Kelley) has referred to experience in one mining centre, where sons are not entering the industry. I do not believe that to be typical. I believe that the majority of new recruits to the industry come from families who have been in it all their lives. It gets into the bones of a family. But if there is one reason for their not working underground, it is the risks of pneumoconiosis and to life and limb.

Mr. Kelley: I referred to junior officials, not miners in general, in that mine. Only one of their sons had gone into the pits, out of 87 families.

Mr. Butler: I am grateful for that clarification, but I think that I am right about miners as a whole.
Regardless of whether wage rates should take account of these risks—I believe that they should—it is high time that there was adequate compensation for such industrial injuries. One must be critical of the NUM for not having been prepared to accept the then Prime Minister's invitation to sit down and discuss this matter, to thrash it out and to reach a solution as soon as possible. One can only hope that the union's attitude has changed and that it and the National Coal Board will come to an agreement. I particularly hope that the Government will give financial assistance for this pur-

pose—perhaps the Minister could confirm that—and that a conclusion may be reached to give truly adequate—indeed generous—compensation to those suffering these dread diseases.
The question of mining subsidence has not been in the forefront of surgery cases or Press publicity, because of the generous interpretation that the Coal Board has been giving over the past year or two to the provisions of the 1957 Act, but most people would agree that that Act, if interpreted exactly, is not sufficiently generous. It is significant that my first mining subsidence cases for a year or more were raised in my surgery only this weekend. That shows that the NCB is already trying to get coal where it has not previously tried, or in areas in which up to now it has had a policy of sterilisation.
Inevitably, this development means that the pillars which are normally left will be cut down a little, that the areas I have described, which for good reason have been sterilised, will now be mined, and there will be a higher incidence of subsidence. If the productivity that people talk about comes to pass, there will be more rapid undermining, with more serious consequences of subsidence. What has happened to the mining subsidence review which my hon. Friends were considering when in Government but which has not yet seen the light of clay? Can the Minister give me any information, particularly the date of publication?
My hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, North-West (Mr. Roberts) referred to the need for a better return on investment in mining. Can the Minister say what the financial targets of the industry are? Are they still, or have they returned to, a requirement to break even?
I want to suggest where coal fits into a general energy policy. We have many alternative sources of energy. Nuclear energy has not been the failure which has been suggested tonight. The Magnox stations have not failed; indeed, they have performed extraordinarily well. It is likely now that, taking into account the costs of oil and coal, they produce electricity more cheaply than any other source. There has been rather too long a delay in deciding the next stage in our nuclear programme, but I hope that that will be rectified shortly.
A source of great economic strength for our country is the massive finds in the North Sea. However, I believe that, within 10 or probably 15 years, there will be a surplus of oil production throughout the world—partly because the present costs of oil from the traditional producers have now risen far enough to encourage other countries to prospect for oil and to extract it as quickly as they can, and also to extract from other sources, such as shale and the Alaska tar sands, which up to now have been uneconomic.
If that possibility exists—the time-scale is important—we must consider our own investment not only in our oilfields, but in our coalfields. It would be the wrong policy to invest massive sums in our coal industry, at least for electricity generation. We should in the long term be looking for the greatest part of our electricity from nuclear fuel.
We have been reminded by the hon. Member for Goole (Dr. Marshall) of the time scale involved in establishing new pits. He did not give a figure, but the cost of Selby or any other new pit will be many millions of pounds. In judging the requirements of energy policy, one has to set investment in new pits against investment in nuclear stations. These are surely matters that the Government have in hand.
What we must do, however, is to go for over-investment in sources of energy as a deliberate act of policy so that we cannot again be caught in the situation in which we have found ourselves in the past few months, when we have been in the hands of the oil-producing countries. If we go for such a policy, certainly coal will play its part. Although I do not look for a massive expansion of the coal industry, it would be right to keep it at its present level. That means a continuing investment so that Selby and any other of the potentially prolific coalfields can be properly developed.
I have no hesitation in supporting the motion.

6.31 p.m.

Mr. David Howell: The House will be grateful to the hon. Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Evans) for putting the motion before us, enabling us to have a first bite in this new Parliament at what is obviously a crucial and central subject in all our affairs and in the future

economy and strength of this country. Obviously we shall press for a much fuller debate on the Government's plans for the development of coal mining in an overall energy context in due course. This afternoon has been rather a brief occasion, although some excellent contributions have been made.
I shall not detain the House for long. I join in the congratulations offered to the hon. Member for Hemsworth (Mr. Woodall) on his maiden speech. He gave a very intimate and detailed glimpse of the life and problems of his constituency. He obviously spoke from great experience in the coal mining industry.
I also pay tribute to the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Bosworth (Mr. Butler), who reminded us that there is no need for an apology for the Conservatives' record towards the coal mining industry during the period of the previous Government. On the contrary, it was a very active and a good record. It turned round the situation which had arisen from the conventional wisdom of everyone throughout the 1960s—that the coal mining industry should be run down. My right hon. and hon. Friend's took a different and more far-sighted view. By their actions and legislation they turned the situation round. It is right that we should take some credit for that. If now the new Government decide to copy parts of that policy we are entitled to regard imitation as the sincerest form of flattery.
I want to express two hopes and to put a few questions to the Under-Secretary of State. Obviously one does not expect the hon. Gentleman to be able to answer all my questions at such short notice, but perhaps he will write to me or let the House know in other ways about some of the answers.
My first hope is that, in deciding the pattern of the coal industry and investment in and policy towards it, there should be in the future a global energy approach. That is the central need for deciding energy questions in the future and for deciding the futures of the different industries within the overall pattern of energy. There is no doubt that the creation of the Department of Energy in January gave the then Government the opportunity to look at the pattern for the future in coal, nuclear power, oil and gas coherently and not at each in isolation. It is essential that this


opportunity is now built on by the present Government, so that they approach the whole energy question in a coherent way with a global strategy.
They should realise what that means. It means that decisions about coal must be taken on the basis of the real costs of production so that the House and the public know what the true relative costs of different sources of energy are and are likely to be, in both the medium term, to about 1980, and thereafter, and so that intelligent decisions can be taken on the basis of those costs. Those cost decisions must include the cost of investment and any artificial taxation effects or other interferences. Let all these things be clear. If thereafter the Government wish to take decisions of a social nature which would go against the competitive cost structure let them do so; but let the facts—the real costs of production of coal and other sources of energy—be open and clear, and let decisions be taken on the basis of those facts.
The central difficulty for the Government—and it is easy to say these things —will be to estimate over the next few years, and certainly after 1980 the price of coal vis-à-vis the price of oil—a very difficult estimate to make. In this country and elsewhere many expert minds are applied to trying to guess how the price of oil will move. At the same time the Government and leaders of the coal industry will have to make assessments about how the price of coal will move. We are now at a stage—and this is the basis for optimism on the part of those who support the coal cause—where for the first time the price of coal is clearly lower than the price of oil. Careful and wise assessments must be made about how long that situation can be, ought to be, and will be maintained, in order to reach decisions about investment in and development of the coal mining industry.
We have heard much about the short term and the long term in the debate. In a very precise and clear way the strategy for coal, as for other energy industries, reaches a watershed at about 1980. It does so for three main reasons. If we make the decisions soon, as the House and the country believe we should, about the next round of investment in

nuclear reactor systems, those nuclear reactors, if the technology is successful and relatively free of troubles, will begin to contribute decisively to the generation of electricity some time after 1980. Secondly, if we get the North Sea oil programme right, soon after 1980, or possibly before then, all our oil needs will come from indigenous sources. Oil, too, like coal, will be an indigenous fuel.
Finally, from 1980 onwards there will come on stream any new power stations, other than nuclear stations, with which the Government now decide to proceed. Clearly, there are difficult decisions here. The House will want to know the Government's thinking about the kind of power stations that they will commission, because those stations will take five, six or seven years to come on stream and will determine the fuel requirements of the Central Electricity Generating Board from 1980 onwards.
There is a great and clear divide between the shorter term up to 1980, when the pattern of energy needs for electricity generation is decided, more or less, within certain limits which can be varied between coal and oil, and the shape after 1980, which it is now within our hands to decide.
That brings me to my second hope, which is that in making these assessments we think not merely of the energy strategy but of the needs of the economy as a whole—of consumers, of people of all ages and all circumstances who need power and warmth and life-giving sources of energy. Above all, these people need security of supply. Therefore, the Government of the day and future Governments have a prime task in providing a secure supply of power. That task has always existed, but it is crucial today. That means that there must be flexibility, with the maximum capacity to draw from a variety of energy sources. It means that this nation should not be pinned irretrievably to one energy source. That, too, is an essential requirement for any future strategy on energy which the Government must develop for the good of the country.
Those are the longer term hopes that I express. We shall obviously want to hear much more about the Government's strategic thinking in due course, and we look forward to hearing their ideas on


the whole energy question and on sensibly and carefully placing the investment needs of coal within that strategy.
May I put some questions to the Minister? I shall perfectly understand if they cannot be answered in detail tonight. First, we should like to know the position in the very short term—that is, in the next few months—about coal stocks. The aim will presumably be for the electricity generating authorities to build up coal stocks to the October 1973 levels again and higher if they choose, and they will be doing this during the second and third quarters of this year. The House would like to know the Government's views, aims and intentions. Obviously there must be great concern after the miners' strike that we get back to a position where we can go into next winter with adequate coal stocks.
Secondly, can we know a little more about the Government's plans for research in those very important areas which were mentioned by the hon. Member for Caerphilly and others for liquefaction—coal into oil—gasification and the other potential uses for coal in the period after the 1980s when there will be a need to look for new uses and new outlets for the industry?
Thirdly, may we know a little more about the point touched on by the hon. Member for Goole (Dr. Marshall), namely, the progress at Selby? Will any coal come out before 1980? Can we have an assurance that the environmental considerations will he carefully considered? With the possibility of coal development in Oxfordshire, environmental considerations become increasingly important.
Fourthly, what is the Government's policy to be on closures? The last Labour Government closed 249 pits. What is the policy now? Will the closure rate continue at that rate or is it to be changed? If it is to be changed how is it to be changed and on what criteria are judgments on closures to be made in future?
May we be given some statistics showing the average earnings of the miners by category after the recent settlement? A Parliamentary Question was tabled on this matter but it did not elicit the necessary information.
The most important question which the House must put and to which the

country must have an answer in the near future is: what view do the Government take about the level of output? Are we talking of an objective of stabilising output at the present figure of 130 million tons or 132 million tons? Are we talking about expansion only on the opencast side with stabilisation of deep-mine coal? Are we talking about an increase up to the 1980s only, with a decrease thereafter? If there is to be an increase, is it to be with a fixed labour force, implying a great increase in productivity? What are the Government's hopes about increased productivity?
All these factors will determine the competitiveness of coal vis-à-vis oil and the strength of the industry overall to compete, not merely as a basic source of energy, but in all the other basic fields which have been mentioned in the debate, as an industry at the spearhead of technological advance.
The House will want to know much more about what the Government intend. It will want to know how the Government intend to fit the strategy for coal into their overall energy strategy. The House will, above all, want assurances, as will the nation, that the energy strategy will ensure security of supply which will mean some flexibility in our reliance on energy sources. These are the questions which now and in the coming weeks will be at the forefront of people's minds and to which answers will be demanded if we are to be clear about the right strategy for coal and for other sources of energy.

6.45 p.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for Energy (Mr. Alex Eadie): It gives me great pleasure to congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Hemsworth (Mr. Woodall) on his maiden speech today. The whole House appreciated the fact that he paid full and adequate tribute to Alan Beaney, the former Member for the constituency.
I understand why my hon. Friend was unable to remain for the remainder of the debate. He was distressed because his wife was called away urgently and he accompanied her to catch a train. My hon. Friend brought an air of reality to the debate. He showed that he would fight for his constituency with great tenacity. I am sure that the whole House will want to hear more from him.
I also want to thank my hon. Friend the Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Evans) for initiating the debate. My hon. Friend seems to be rather successful in the Ballot for Private Members' motions. Because of his compassion, understanding and great love for those he represents, particularly the miners, he always chooses this subject for a debate and gives it an adequate airing.
My hon. Friend asked me for some assurances. I do not need to give him any assurances, because the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Hooson) gave all the assurances that my hon. Friend would want. The hon. and learned Gentleman said that he did not like the present set-up in relation to the National Coal Board and said that there should be some private participation now in the organisation of the coal industry. At one time, anyone who dared to say that would have been laughed out of the House, but the hon. and learned Gentleman said it and nobody laughed at him.
The hon. and learned Member made his proposal because there is now a recognition that, as a result of the energy crisis—it is a crisis, not a problem—coal as a fossil fuel has a future and may well be profitable. So that is one assurance for my hon. Friend—that coal has a future.
My hon. Friend spoke about the need to utilise our fossil fuels to a greater extent and said, correctly, that although fossil fuels were wasting assets, of all the fossil fuels that there were we had an abundance of coal; therefore, in the strategy and planning of the use of our fossil fuels greater attention must be paid to coal.
I hope that my hon. Friend understands why I cannot give him some of the detailed assurances he wants. He knows that we are in the process of a tripartite inquiry into the coal industry. The first meeting will take place in the coming week.
It may assist if I give the terms of reference of the inquiry. They are:
to consider and advise on the contribution which coal can best make to the country's future energy requirements and the steps needed to secure that contribution.
There are to be represented on that tripartite inquiry the National Coal Board, the National Union of Mineworkers,

NACODS, BACM and the Government. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Energy regards this matter as so urgent and important that he will preside over the inquiry.
My hon. Friend referred to the social effects and impacts on the contraction of the mining industry. Speaking as a former miner, when I heard my hon. Friend, I thought that it was almost like hearing the story of one's life. The hon. and learned Member for Montgomery referred to the rôle that coal should play in future. I should tell him that that view was not shared by all his hon. Friends on the Liberal benches. I can remember Liberal Members and some Conservative Members saying that the solution to our problems was entirely to wipe out the coal mining industry.
When the hon. Member for Guildford (Mr. Howell) said that the country had been through a bad time and referred to the foresight of the previous Government in connection with the mining industry, I could not but reflect on the fact that the foresight of the previous administration was responsible for two great coal strikes, in 1972 and 1974. One of the responsibilities of the present Government has been to get the nation back to work and to reach a settlement with the miners.
When an hon. Member said that it was a great error of judgment on the part of the previous administration to consider taking on the miners for a second time, I recalled the advice given by a former Prime Minister when he said that there were three organisations with which no Government should do battle—the Church, the Treasury and the miners. It is a pity that the outgoing administration did not pay heed to that advice.
My hon. Friend mentioned Ogilvie Colliery in his constituency, and referred to the proposed closure and the negotiations between the union and the National Coal Board. He gave the figures for the losses sustained by that colliery. I have to tell him that although the appeal against the closure was heard at national level on 4th December, the appeal decision has not yet been announced. However, I assure my hon. Friend that we shall bear in mind the points that he has made, because I appreciate that it is a great constituency problem.
My hon. Friend also mentioned recruitment after the Government got the miners back to work and made a wages settlement. I am sure that he will be interested to know that since 11th March, 13,000 men have applied for work at collieries. Of those, 7,000 are ex-miners. and in the three weeks ending 29th March 2,000 have signed on to start work in collieries. The interviewing continues.
Manpower availability is one of the important matters that will be considered in any examination that we shall undertake in the industry. If I had time, I could give more details of the area break-up, but, in view of the hour, I hope that I shall be excused from doing So.
My hon. Friend the Member for Don Valley (Mr. Kelley) brought out very clearly the importance of energising the nation's industry. Indeed, without energy we should freeze to death. At the very least, the country would be faced with a serious crisis. We have agreed in this debate that coal has a vital rôle to play in our energy resources, but it is as well to remember—my hon. Friend the Member for Don Valley also mentioned this—that there is a price to be paid, that coal mining is still a dirty, dangerous and arduous job and that men lose their lives in the industry.
Even since the settlement of the miners' strike, men have paid the price when digging the coal that the nation so vitally needs. In the three weeks from 11 th March 1974 to 30th March 1974—that is after the resumption of normal working—three men were killed in the pits and there were 29 very serious injuries. It is a sobering thought, when we speak in what we think is an objective way about the mining industry, that people have to pay this high price.
My hon. Friend asked some questions about coal derivatives. The National Coal Board has been doing some remarkable work in this connection recently. I remember making the point that by using 1950 technology—not 1974 technology—one could get 100 gallons of petrol from one ton of coal: the economics are another matter. My hon. Friend talked of signposting the way into the 1980s and 1990s, saying that coal was much cheaper

than oil, but one cannot tell what the trend will be in obtaining derivatives from coal.
I have been asked whether the National Coal Board is active and alive in the matter of research and development, and I can say that that matter is receiving urgent attention. There are other perhaps less inspiring derivatives of coal. One thinks here of plastic materials, pitch plastics, damp proof courses and roofing materials for the building industry, and even synthetic cricket pitches—

It being Seven o'clock, proceedings on the Motion lapsed, pursuant to Standing Order No. 6 (Precedence of Government Business).

BRITISH RAILWAYS BILL (By Order)

Order for Second Reading read.

Mr. Speaker: Before calling the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Cunningham) to move the Second Reading, I have to inform the House that I have not selected the amendment in the names of the hon. Members for Essex, South-East (Sir B. Braine) and Southend, East (Sir S. McAdden).

7.0 p.m.

Mr. George Cunningham: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
This is a Private Bill promoted by the British Railways Board. Like many other public authorities, British Rail has to seek from time to time by means of a Private Bill the legislative authority of Parliament for some of its activities, and in the case of British Rail this happens almost every year. Being a Private Bill affecting private interests, the Bill will be subject in Committee to the rigorous procedures applying to such Bills. Objectors to the provisions of the Bill will be able to present their cases in the quasijudicial conditions of a Private Bill Committee.
I stand here not as the author of the Bill but as its sponsor, having been requested by British Rail to present and explain its provisions to the House. I remind hon. Members that this procedure for British Rail Bills derived from a complaint, voiced in 1970, I think, that there


were inadequate arrangements for the explanation of British Rail Bills on Second Reading. I shall do my best to acquaint the House with the content of the Bill. However, hon. Members will understand that I am not in the position of a Minister presenting a Bill and I do not have the full backing which Ministers have, so I hope that the House will bear with me in any deficiencies on my part in performing that task. If I am able to answer any questions raised in the debate, and if the House wishes me to speak a second time for that purpose, I shall seek leave so to do.
I understand that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State will intervene during the debate to state the Government's views on the Bill, but I should say now that the Secretary of State for the Environment has given his consent to British Rail to promote the Bill, as is required under Section 17 of the Transport Act 1962.
The House is entitled to a full account of the content of the Bill, and I shall, therefore, give it the benefit of my lost weekend. I shall not start at Clause 1 and go right through to Clause 31, for I think that it will be more helpful if I present my account in what I regard as a more logical order.
The provisions of the Bill may be divided into three groups. First, there are the non-substantial provisions, such as the title and the interpretation clauses and a few other routine clauses. Second, there are the provisions authorising works to be undertaken in specified localities. Third, there are some important general provisions.
Clauses 1 and 2 provide for the Title and arrangement of the Bill. Clauses 3 and 15 are interpretation clauses defining terms used in the Bill. Clauses 4, 10, 14, 18 and 21 are designed to relate this Bill to other enactments governing British Rail. For example, Clause 4 provides that the general rules about the construction of railways, level crossings, bridges and so forth will apply to general constructions authorised by this Bill as to all others. I should mention in this group Clause 30, the arbitration clause, Clause 20, containing minor amendments to the SELNEC Act, and Clause 31 making routine provision for costs.
I come next to the clauses which authorise specified works in specified

places. First, I mention the Maplin railway line. As the Bill stands, Clause 6, under the headings Work No. 1 and Work No. 2, would allow British Rail to construct a railway from Thorpe Bay to the seawall opposite Foulness and from there over the land which was to be reclaimed. I cannot speak for the Government, but hon. Members will know that the Secretary of State for Trade has announced that the whole Maplin project is being reviewed and that meanwhile no further money is to be spent on it. In the light of that, it is not the intention of British Rail to seek the authorisation now set out under Work No. 1 and Work No. 2 in Clause 6. The promotors will seek leave in Committee to delete those provisions from Clause 6. Other provisions of the Bill consequential on Works Nos. 1 and 2 will be deleted also. This will dispose, among others, of Clause 6(1) and (3) and some of the works described in Clause 7.
I emphasise that point again so that there will be no misunderstanding during this Second Reading debate. The proposal to build a line from Thorpe Bay to the reclaimable land at Foulness will not form part of this Bill as it emerges from Committee. It would have been better if the provisions in this connection could have been removed before the introduction of the Bill, but, as hon. Members will understand, the timing of the Government's decision did not allow that. There is a rigorous timetable laid down for Private Bills in the orders of the House for Private Business, and that had to be held to in the way I have indicated. The House will understand also that the question whether there is to be an airport or a seaport at Maplin is not one for British Rail and, therefore, not one for this Bill.
The provisions under Work No. 3 in Clause 6 would provide for a one-mile extension to connect a spur railway on Canvey Island, which has already been authorised by the British Railways Act 1972, with an oil refinery proposed to be constructed by United Refineries Limited, and possibly a second refinery now under construction by Occidental Oil Company Limited. This line will be used to transport the refined product from the refinery, or refineries, to inland depots.
Work No. 4 would provide for a new railway station at Bury in Lancashire and


a tiny stretch of line to connect it with an existing line of route where rail will be relaid. This is required by the Greater Manchester Passenger Transport Executive as part of its suburban commuter services. I should say that Bury Corporation has petitioned against this provision, and negotiations are taking place with a view to meeting these objections.
Work No. 5 would provide for a new road and bridge just north of Doncaster where the East Coast main line and the Doncaster-Leeds lines diverge. These works will allow two level crossings to be closed.
Work No. 6 is provided for in Clauses 16 and 17. It relates to the proposed tube line between Piccadilly and Victoria station in Manchester, the so-called "Pic-Vic". The works required for this tube line have already been authorised, and all that is being done now is to authorise a slight change in the alignment of the tunnel. Only a small part of the tunnel is affected, at the southern end, and the change is expected to save about £300,000.
Hon. Members will note that under Clause 17 (2) compensation for those affected by acquisitions on the old route will not he affected, and I am assured that Manchester Corporation does not object to this proposal.
Those are the five most important works covered by the Bill. I come now to five less significant works. Clause 7 will allow some roads and footpaths to be stopped. The stopping up of these cases is consequential upon the major works dealt with in Clause 6, and, as I said, those consequential on works Nos. 1 and 2 in Clause 6 will be proposed for deletion in Committee. There is also a proposal to stop up a level crossing in Peterborough. This has the approval of the local authorities and is justified because a new road bridge has been built. A footbridge will take the place of the level crossing for pedestrians.
Clause 8 provides for a new level crossing to carry the new Aylsham bypass over the railway. Norfolk County Council approves this step. When the new crossing is in operation, but not before, the nearby Greenwood crossing will be downgraded to a private one usable only by neighbouring owners and occupiers, who will be given private keys to it.
Clause 9 allows a number of other crossings as set out in Schedule 1 to be closed to public vehicular traffic. They are little used except by local residents and this provision will save costs by removing the need for a crossing keeper. Nearby owners and occupiers will still have private use of the crossings for vehicles and the public will be able to use them for pedestrian travel, and in some cases they will also be usable as bridle paths.
Clauses 23 and 24 allow British Rail to transfer two stretches of line to other interests, in one case to the National Coal Board and in the other to a private company. British Rail has no operational use for these stretches of line.
Clause 26 deals with the underground pedestrian way at Blackfriars in London at the end of Blackfriars Bridge. I am advised by British Rail that the proposed subway interferes with property development and it is now proposed to replace it with a way on the surface. That concludes the works authorised in specified localities.
I come now to general powers provided in the Bill. First is the power to acquire land or other necessary interests by compulsion for the purposes set out in the Bill. It is covered by Clauses 5, 11, 12, 13 and 19. The procedure to be used is that provided for in the Compulsory Purchase Act 1965. The power to do this for works authorised in the Bill will expire at the end of 1977 to avoid planning blight. Where British Rail does not need to acquire the ownership of land but only a right on it it will be able to acquire only that right.
Clause 27 extends until the end of 1977 the power to acquire land by compulsion conferred by a number of earlier Acts, but Clause 28 allows the owner or occupier affected by this extension to serve a purchase notice on the board.
Since the hon. Members for Essex, South-East (Sir Bernard Braine) and Southend, East (Sir S. McAdden) are particularly concerned with one work covered by that provision I shall deal with it specifically. The works covering it includes a spur line to Canvey Island and the delay on that spur line has occurred because of delay in the construction of the refinery which the line was due to serve. It is for that reason in that case


that the powers compulsorily to acquire the land are being extended for a further period.
Clause 29 ensures that the normal arrangements on planning permission applying to British Rail will apply in cases authorised by the Bill. However, partial exemption from planning permission will apply only if the works are started within 10 years.
There are a couple of provisions of a more general nature. The police have special powers to search and arrest persons employed by British Rail or on British Rail property. These powers, however, are conferred for a limited period and need to be renewed from time to time. Clause 22 seeks to extend the powers for a further period of five years till 1979 in the same form as at present.
There is an interesting provision on illuminated signs at level crossings. A fireman pointing a hose at an illuminated sign can get a shock from the electricity travelling along the water. For that reason the law provides that so-called fireman's switches must be fitted near such signs so that they may be switched off if there is a fire. It has been realised that this creates a new risk.
Hon. Members will be aware of the dangers attaching to level crossings fitted with half barriers—that is, barriers which obstruct only the left half of the road on the approach sides to the crossing. Imagine a driver held up at such a crossing. He waits for a while and a train passes. He decides that there will not be another train and that the barrier is defective since it does not rise. He weaves his way round the barrier and gets clobbered by the second train.
To avoid that British Rail uses an illuminated sign which says "Second train coming". At the moment that sign must be fitted with a fireman's switch. British Rail, in its boundless anxiety to save mankind from the consequences of their own folly, fears that vandals or other anti-social persons might switch off such a sign when it should be on. Clause 25, therefore, exempts signs on lifting barriers from the need to have a fireman's switch.
That is my account of the contents of the Bill. I hope that I have managed to make it a little clearer than the text

might have succeeded in doing. If there are points which I can deal with I should be grateful for the opportunity to do so at the end of the debate.

7.15 p.m.

Sir Bernard Braine: The House is grateful to the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Cunningham) for the clear and factual way in which he has introduced the Bill and explained its contents. I and, I am sure, my hon. Friends the Members for Southend, East (Sir S. McAdden), Southend, West (Mr. Channon) and Maldon (Mr. Wakeham) were glad to hear that the proposal for the rail link to Maplin had been abandoned and would be dropped from the Bill. That decision will give a great deal of satisfaction to my former constituents in the Rochford rural district who asked me before the General Election to oppose that provision.
I do not doubt that in general the provisions of the Bill are impeccable. I have no quarrel with them save one. That is the provision in Clause 6 called Work No. 3 for a spur line to serve two oil refineries on Canvey Island which, as most hon. Members know, is in my constituency. It is essential for me to say something about the history of the refineries on Canvey Island so that the House may judge for itself the strength of objection to this provision.
In 1965, the then Labour Government gave planning permission for one oil refinery to be built on Canvey. Although the local Labour-controlled Canvey Urban District Council was in favour of the proposal, everyone else was opposed to it. They included the neighbouring local authorities—the planning authority: indeed, no fewer than 20,000 of my constituents signed a petition against granting planning permission for a refinery close to what was a large and growing residential population. One reason was that the prevailing winds in our part of the Thames Estuary were south-westerly and tens of thousands of people in South-East Essex and Southend were already suffering, and had been suffering for a number of years, much discomfort from the operations of two existing large refineries sited immediately to the west of Canvey Island. They did not want their nuisance to be aggravated.
Another reason was that the area, not merely Canvey but neighbouring Benfleet, was one of growing residential population. Accordingly I raised the matter in the House. There was a public inquiry following which the Secretary of State decided to ignore the recommendations of his inspector and planning permission was given. In the event the company did not proceed at that time to build its refinery.
In 1972, in spite of strenuous opposition from me, from my constituents, the local urban district council, neighbouring councils and the planning authority, the Conservative Secretary of State for the Environment gave permission to Occidental Petroleum to build a 6-million ton capacity plant on the island.
That was bad enough. But last year his successor as Secretary of State gave planning permission to United Refineries Ltd., the company that had made the original application in the 1960s, to build a second refinery with a 4-million ton capacity. That permission, also followed a public inquiry. Again, the Secretary of State, despite protestations from me, from the local authorities, from all those most closely concerned, over-ruled his inspector and granted planning permission. It is, of course, strictly relevant to the consideration of the Bill, and particularly Clause 6, to consider the effect of these two planning permissions taken together.
Canvey Island covers no more than 4,000 acres. It houses nearly 30,000 people. Once the two refineries are built, nearly half of this small island, where a large population have chosen to make their homes, will become a major oil refinery and storage complex. Nearly half the island will be occupied by officially classified hazardous industries. Those industries will include not only the two oil refineries, but an oil storage wharf, oil storage tanks, a methane gas terminal and methane storage.
Furthermore, a little to the west of the island are two of the largest oil refineries in the country, both of which have expanded in recent years, one at Shellhaven and the other at Coryton, all within sight of the people who live on Canvey. Then there is a third refinery across the river on the Isle of Grain. Last week, as though that was not enough, it was

announced that the Secretary of State was minded to grant planning permission for a fourth refinery at Cliffe, on the Kent side of the river, a few miles to the south-west of Canvey. All these refineries are within a five-mile radius of Canvey Island.
We have had our share of warnings about the hazards that are building up around us. We have had many refinery fires, happily without loss of life, happily all contained, thanks to the skill, bravery and resourcefulness of the fire brigade, but all serious in themselves. We have had collisions in the estuary between vessels carrying hazardous cargoes, with near-disaster situations along the Canvey waterfront.
I do not apologise for reminding the House for a second time within a week that recently an ammunition ship collided with the sea wall at Canvey, not far from the methane terminal. Happily, the vessel was empty on that occasion, but it might not have been. I recall that only a few years ago, the Thames off Canvey Island was literally set on fire by oil gushing out from severed supply lines, with blazing barges bearing down upon an oil wharf. Now, thanks to successive Secretaries of State, who do not live in the area, we are to have two new oil refineries thrust on to a small island alongside a large and growing residential population. I have said before, and I say again, that no Government have the right to add to the existing risks surrounding the community which I have had the honour to represent in the House for more than 20 years.
It is against that background then, that one must consider the proposal in the Bill to site a rail depot in the middle of two oil refineries, for that depot represents an additional and considerable hazard in an already high-risk environment. There are always risks in the handling of inflammable materials. I recall the concern expressed in the House only last November about the fire on 5th October at an oil depot served by railway sidings at Langley in Buckinghamshire. The hon. Member for Eton and Slough (Miss Lestor) raised the matter and because of the relevance of the case to our own experience, I was present to support her. Fortunately no one was killed in that sudden explosion and the fire that followed. The injuries were restricted to


the firemen handling the blaze, but local residents had to be evacuated from their homes. The situation was brought under control as it so often is, by the usual cool and courageous resourcefulness of the fire brigade.
If I remember correctly what the hon. Lady said at the time, the Langley depot had been in existence for some time, and was close to private dwellings. It follows that in the siting of such installations the greatest possible care should always be exercised to see that they are as far as possible from residential areas.
It might be argued that, if we are to have these monstrosities it would be better to have all the refinery products taken off the island by rail, and that British Rail may be doing a public service by taking the material away in this way. But does it have to do so in this day and age? Could not the products be piped from Canvey to the nearby oil complex at Shellhaven and Coryton? Why is it necessary to extend a rail link for the purpose? I hope that the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury can give a satisfactory reply. If not, we shall want to know the answer in Committee.
In any event, if the Bill becomes law, I must ask that it be made mandatory that no oil products shall be moved by road in my crowded constituency.
However, the point I want to make tonight is that in South-East Essex we already have—I would go further and say that we already have on Thames-side—too great a concentration of high-firerisk installations. Thus, I am asking not merely that the provision for the rail link should be struck out of the Bill, but that a fresh look should be taken at the totality of the effect on an environment of the build-up of high-fire-risk installations on Canvey Island and elsewhere in the Thames Estuary.
I do not know how many more times I have to plead in the House for this very simple proposition to be taken in by those responsible in Whitehall for the environment and safety. All I am asking is that a total look should be taken of all the planning decisions that are being made, one after the other. We had the ridiculous assertion last week by the promoter of the Burmah-Total Refineries Trust Bill that, because there were already other refineries and installations near Cliffe it would not matter if

another were added. But the whole point is that it would matter very much indeed. My constituents are crying out for the existing situation to be taken into account before further planning permissions are given. I have been hammering that home repeatedly over the years to successive Secretaries of State.
Finally, it looked as though a glimmer of awareness was beginning to shine through when, in the debate on the Langley fire on 16th November last year, my right hon. Friend the Member for Crosby (Mr. Page), then Minister for Local Government and Development, conceded that he thought that I was correct in my contention that we were reaching saturation point with oil refineries. My right hon. Friend had taken the trouble to get into a helicopter. I am sure that he did not receive much encouragement from his Department to do so. But he at least had the imagination to fly over the area and see for himself what was at stake. Speaking of his flight over the Thames Estuary and my constituency in particular, my right hon. Friend said:
From that experience, I believe that my hon. Friend is right—that we ought to consider very carefully the whole implications of any further development of this kind in the area. One can only get a knowledge of this by really looking at the area, and one does get very good knowledge by looking at it from the air as well as from the ground and studying the effects there … I look on it as the responsibility of the Ministers concerned to get together and ensure that further damage is not done to an area of this sort. I can assure my hon. Friend that, following my examination of the area from the air, I am in discussions and in consideration of the matter with my colleagues."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 16th November 1973; Vol. 864, c. 904.]
At last there was someone prepared to look at the totality of the effect of what was being done and planned for my unfortunate constituents.
Since then, five months have elapsed. The only tangible sign of anything happening is that the new Secretary of State has let it be known that he is minded to grant planning permission for yet another oil refinery on the other side of the Thames. During the election he had a lot to say about the necessity for safeguarding the environment and actually sent messages to my constituents saying how concerned he was with the matter and that he would certainly have another


look at the issue. Since it is the case that he is minded to grant the Cliffe application, I ask for a pause during which the whole situation can be investigated, as promised by my right hon. Friend in the House last November.
Pending a proper inter-departmental inquiry, I suggest that there should be no planning permission granted at Cliffe and that a clear answer should be given to the request I made in the House on 1st April for planning permission already given for the two oil refineries at Canvey to be revoked. Certainly this should happen in the case of the one refinery where no building operations have yet begun.
The provision for the rail link should be struck out from Clause 6. No provision of this kind should be placed upon the statute book. I repeat that no Government have the right to take chances with the safety of the environment of human beings. It is my contention, advanced repeatedly in the House and outside it over many years, that unacceptable risks are being taken. Ministers should now have the courage and imagination to recognise this and to call a halt. I hope that on this I shall have the unqualified support of the House.

7.33 p.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Neil Carmichael): I intervene briefly, as is the custom on these occasions, to give an indication of the Government's attitude. I am sure that the hon. Member for Southend, East (Sir S. McAdden) should he catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, will be putting the case for his constituents with the same ingenuity and force as did the hon. Member for Essex, South-East (Sir Bernard Braine).
I appreciate that the proposals to build two refineries at Canvey Island have engendered a great deal of opposition. I understand and sympathise with the attitude of those who live in the area.
I must emphasise, however, that the refineries are not the subject of Work No. 3 in Clause 6(1). The Bill was well introduced by my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, South-West (Mr. Cunningham). He said that he had spent a lost weekend on it. Should we have difficulty in understanding the legal language of the Bill we shall certainly

understand what it is about after reading my hon. Friend's speech. Thus his weekend has not really been lost.
The refineries already enjoy the advantage of planning permission given by the previous Secretary of State. Work No. 3 provides for the construction of a rail link between the proposed refineries and would underline the emphasis placed on the necessity to provide rail facilities for the distribution of production. The hon. Member for Essex, South-East spoke in terms of a pipeline and other methods of distribution. This is a point that can be raised in Committee. In addition to the feelings of local opinion, the views of the experts have to be taken into account.
It is agreed that it is preferable to carry refinery crude oil by rail or sea rather than to increase the burden of road traffic.
This is why conditions were attached to the permission given to United Refineries Ltd. which limited the number of road tanker movements per day. We can have no reasonable objection to British Railways taking power to construct the rail link. That is all that Clause 6(1) does—gives power to construct a rail link to the site of the refinery for which planning permission already exists. I do not think this can be regarded as premature since, if for one reason or another, circumstances changed and the refinery was not built, presumably British Railways would not exercise the power being sought in the Bill.
The hon. Member for Essex, South-East discussed the proximity of houses and factories to this development. The location of such a link is a matter upon which we in the Department have a completely open mind. This is one of those technical matters that can best be left to the Select Committee which will have the benefit of expert evidence. I ask the House to follow the convention with Private Bills and to refer the Bill to a Select Committee.

7.37 p.m.

Sir Stephen McAdden: I owe it to the House to give some explanation of why it was that in the last Parliament and again in this Parliament I tabled a blocking motion to ensure that we debated the Bill. I did so because of the provisions in the Bill to construct a


spur-line from Thorpe Bay Station, which is the station I use every day, to Maplin. I was opposed to this on a number of grounds.
I was surprised when I received a letter from the parliamentary agents of British Railways, saying that it was their intention in Committee to seek permission to delete anything relating to Maplin from the Bill. Needless to say, I was delighted to read this until I looked at the date of the letter—1st April 1974. I wondered whether someone was pulling my leg. Having fought this proposal without very much encouragement for a long time, I was surprised to find that there had been capitulation by British Railways, that they had at last seen sense and decided not to go ahead with the provision of the railway.
I was delighted to hear the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Cunningham) confirm, with all the authotiy he had, speaking on behalf of British Railways, that this was not a "con" message sent by the parliamentary agents but represented the truth. That does not prevent me from saying that I was surprised that the provision was ever in the Bill.
Parliament has never yet decided to build an airport at Maplin. We have set up a Maplin Development Authority and at some future time a Minister will come to the House and give us the benefit of his consultations with a number of interested bodies and recommend to the House whether Maplin should go ahead. The House has never yet decided that there should be an airport in that area.
When we had some exchanges in the House about the possible attitude which might be taken by this Government, as opposed to that taken by the previous Government, I noticed that some of my hon. and right hon. Friends took credit for the fact that they had incorporated into the Bill provisions for consultation with various bodies before any important decision was taken. I think that they might have done the decent thing and said that, after all, this provision was inserted into the Bill only against their wishes, and that it was the activity of hon. Members on this side of the House, with support from hon. Members opposite, which brought about that very important

provision being inserted into the Maplin Development Authority Bill.
However, there is always good to be found somewhere, and one of the results of the General Election which have given me much pleasure is that Maplin, which my hon. Friend the Member for Essex, South-East (Sir Bernard Braine) and I have opposed from the beginning, looks as though it is on its way out. We cannot cheer too soon, but at least it seems that, if we are not to provide a railway with which to take passengers there, Maplin airport is unlikely to be of much use. The arguments for its existence are, therefore, becoming less and less each day, and we are awaiting only the official announcement of its final demise. I am sure that many of us will be pleased to contribute an obituary to this interesting experiment which never was. As the Under Secretary of State will recall:
The best laid schemes o' mice and men Gang aft a-gley;".
Many people thought that Maplin was a wonderful scheme but many of us affected by it did not view it with such favour, and I am sorry that British Railways decided to introduce a Bill to build a railway line before Parliament decided whether the line ought to be built.
British Railways fell into the trap of seeking to provide a railway line before Parliament had said that it was wanted. I hope that British Railways will not fall again into a trap by being bull dozed by the Port of London Authority or by the noble Lord, Lord Aldington. Other respectable bodies were talking as though an airport at Maplin was inevitable and all that was wanted was the rubber stamp of the House of Commons. British Railways would be well advised to hold horses this time. Just as they were caught out by the airport protect, it is highly possible that they will be caught out by the seaport project. They should take advice on this matter.
All that has been given to the Port of London Authority is the authority to submit a scheme. That scheme, when submitted, will have to go to the docks authorities for examination. No doubt hon. Members on both sides of the House will be able to put forward claims as to why a new seaport should not be at Maplin but somewhere else instead. Thus,


if British Railways start providing railway facilities out there, they may find themselves providing them in the wrong place. British Railways made a mistake in the preparation of this Bill and I hope they will not repeat it until Parliament has come to a decision on the seaport question.
I support, as I always have supported throughout the last 25 years, my hon. Friend the Member for Essex, South-East. To hon. Members who may not be aware of it, I point out that he has been Member for that area throughout. It has had a number of different names. Once, he was Member for Billericay. There has been a succession of name changes, but always within his empire he has had Canvey Island. He is king of Canvey, speaks of it with great affection and desires to do all he can for his constituents, as we seek to do for ours.
It might not come amiss now to remind the House that Canvey has suffered enough in many different ways in the past. I remember with great clarity the disastrous floods of 1953 and the great horror and destruction inflicted upon the unfortunate people of Canvey and other places in the area, but particularly in Canvey.
I can well understand the passion with which my hon. Friend seeks to protect his constituents from being subjected to further risks—highly dangerous risks—by the provision of more and more refineries upon Canvey Island. I cannot speak with the same passion about the subject because my constituency is too far away to be immediately affected. My hon. Friend's constituency gets the refineries and we only get the smell. But the smell, though unpleasant and disliked, does not kill us and does not stir the same passions as does the existence of the dangers and hazards at Canvey.
Therefore, I add my still small voice to my hon. Friend's voice in the hope that, although it may not be particularly or significantly related to this Bill, the words he uttered will be read by those who are not here tonight, and that they will realise that the cause of Canvey and the dangers to which its inhabitants are subjected are, and will continue to be, matters of great concern, not only to my hon. Friend the Member for Essex, South-

East but to his many Friends who represent neighbouring constituencies.

7.46 p.m.

Mr. Ron Lewis: I apologise to my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Cunningham) for not being present when he moved the Second Reading of the Bill. As is customary, I should declare an interest. As far as I know, I am still on the books of British Railways. I am also a member of the National Union of Railwaymen. I have consulted the union about the Bill and, naturally, if it will mean employment for railwaymen, we welcome it.
I congratulate the hon. Member for Essex, South-East (Sir B. Braine) on the way in which he lambasted the late Conservative Government and the present Government. It goes to prove that there is still an independent spirit left in the House after all. I hope, however, that he will not divide the House tonight. I appreciate his problems and the problems of the hon. Member for Southend, East (Sir S. McAdden). I appreciate how their constituents feel.
I appreciate their problems all the more because we in the far North-West of England complain that we do not seem to be able to get sufficient development there because so much is concentrated south of the Thames. I only wish that some of the larger industries or industrial developers would remember, in their planning for the future, that we in Cumberland have a coastline and a railway system that can take us almost anywhere within these islands, and that we have been trying to develop an airport.
At times it seems that we have been forgotten, however. I hope that, arising even out of this Bill, the area I represent will be considered for development and that industry will be channelled there. The Bill is not confined to Essex. It deals with other parts of the country. For example, as I understand it, it proposes to abolish two level crossings in Yorkshire and Lancashire. The Bill surely deserves support from us all.
I hope that the House will not divide upon this issue but will allow the Bill to go to Committee and, if necessary, to be tidied up there. On behalf of myself and my organisation I support the Bill, while understanding the feelings of the


hon. Members for Southend, East and Essex, South-East.

7.50 p.m.

Mr. Paul Channon: I respond entirely to what was said by the hon. Member for Carlisle (Mr. Lewis). It would be a pity if the House were to divide against the Bill. I hope that it receives a Second Reading.
I have listened to the speeches made by my hon. Friends the Members for Essex, South-East (Sir Bernard Braine) and Southend, East (Sir S. McAdden) who have made a formidable case to which the House should pay attention. I was disturbed when I originally read Clause 6(1), to which the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Cunningham) referred. His introductory remarks satisfied me, and I appreciate the undertaking which the hon. Gentleman gave that British Railways would withdraw in Committee the proposed Work No. 1, which is in the constituencies of my two hon. Friends and affects the lives of other people in constituencies not far away.
It is right that British Railways should seek to withdraw that provision because the decision whether to have a third London Airport and if so whether it should be at Maplin cannot be taken by British Railways. That decision can be taken only by the House of Commons. The sooner that decision is made the better. The uncertainties about access routes, the rail link and many other aspects lead me to think that this is not the last occasion on which this matter will have to be discussed in the House. I am glad that British Railways have taken a sensible view. I hope that the Under-Secretary of State will make sure

that his Department carries out speedily the review that has been promised so that finality may be reached. That must be in the interests of all those who live in or represent Essex.
I do not wish to oppose the Bill, especially in view of the extremely helpful remarks made by the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury, and his undertaking that British Railways will seek to remove Clause 6(1) if the House gives the Bill a Second Reading.

7.54 p.m.

Mr. George Cunningham: May I reply, Mr. Deputy Speaker, with the leave of the House? Probably unwisely, I said that I might seek to intervene a second time if questions were raised with which I could deal. Certainly questions have been raised, and I must, with all humility to older and wiser Members of the House, congratulate them on the vigour of their presentations on behalf of their constituents.
All three hon. Gentlemen will understand that their criticisms are directed principally at the Government, as the hon. Member for Essex, South-East (Sir Bernard Braine) made abundantly clear, and not at British Railways. I assure the House that British Railways will read with great interest and sympathy the remarks which have been made, and it is inevitable that the comments made on the Floor of the House will be considered in Committee.
I hope that the House will give the Bill a Second Reading.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time and committed.

Orders of the Day — REPRESENTATION OF THE PEOPLE BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

7.56 p.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Dr. Shirley Summerskill): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
The Bill is short and its purpose is simple. Its purpose is to raise the limits of candidates' expenses at local government elections in England and Wales and in Scotland, and at ward elections in the City of London. These limits were last raised by the Representation of the People Act 1969 following a recommendation by Mr. Speaker's Conference on Electoral Law that the limits at parliamentary elections should be raised.
In 1969, the limits for local elections were raised to £30 plus 5p for every six electors. On 6th February this year, Mr. Speaker's Conference recommended that, in the context of a possibly impending General Election, the limits at a parliamentary election should be raised to equivalent in present purchasing power of the limits set in 1969. It was decided to give this recommendation immediate effect before the General Election, and there was, therefore, no time for consultations with the local authority associations and political parties with a view to making comparable changes in the limits for local elections. All concerned have now been consulted, and there is fairly general agreement with the new limits proposed in the Bill.
The new limits are contained in Clause 1 and provide that at local elections the limits shall be £45 plus 1 p for each elector. It may be helpful to illustrate the effect of the change with one or two examples. In an electoral area with 1,000 electors on the register as first published, the limit will go up from £38 to £55, and in an area with 9,000 electors it will go up from £105 to £135. Perhaps I should explain here that the reference to the register as first published means that every name on the current register may be counted for the purpose of the limit, even

though some electors will not attain the voting age of 18 until later in the year.
There may be some who would like higher limits than those proposed in the Bill, and to them I would say two things. First, the increases in the Bill are pro rata with the increases made for parliamentary elections last February. Secondly, no one wants standing for election to a local authority to be too much of a financial burden, and we must remember that the basic limit of £45 applies at parish elections just as much as at county elections.
It is, obviously, desirable that these changes should take place in time for the London borough elections and elections to the new local authorities in Scotland, which are to be held early in May. That is why we have proposed that the Bill should pass through its remaining stages tonight so that it may be considered in another place and, if passed, receive the Royal Assent before Easter.
We believe that the Bill will help candidates at local elections to meet higher costs, for example of printing, so that they may present their views adequately to the electors. At the same time, the new limits should ensure that expenditure at local elections is still kept at modest levels.

7.58 p.m.

Mr. Norman Fowler: The Opposition welcome the Bill.
We are concerned here, as in so many Home Office subjects, with striking a balance. If we put the level of expenses allowed too high, elections could become extravagant affairs, involving substantial cost. On the other hand, if we put it too low, we may prevent political parties from fighting legitimate campaigns. In this case, as the Under-Secretary of State made clear, the balance has been struck by giving an increase in local government election expenses pro rata to that given for parliamentary elections. It must follow, if an increase for parliamentary elections is justified, that an increase for local government elections is justified. In both cases, the costs, notably for printing and stationery, have increased dramatically since the last review in 1969. Thus, in principle, the Opposition welcome the increases proposed in the Bill.
I have several short questions I should like to put to the hon. Lady. First, there is the question of the consultation


which has taken place before the proposed new limits were settled. Perhaps "consultation" is putting it a little high. As I understand the position, the Home Office letters setting out the increases were sent out on 9th March, which was a Saturday, and we may assume that the letters arrived no sooner than 11 th March. Nevertheless, the recipients were told,
… unless the Under-Secretary of State, Home Office, is advised to the contrary by 29th March 1974 agreement with these proposals will be assumed.
I think it would be better to say that these letters were sent out for the purposes of information rather than for consultation. We understand that in the circumstances speed is of the essence if the new limits are to come into force in time for the London borough elections and for the elections in Scotland. On the other hand, we should not like this form of consultation to be treated as a precedent, but merely as exceptional action to meet exceptional circumstances.
In addition, I think that we are entitled to ask another question. The hon. Lady has stressed the urgency of the action that she is proposing and rightly points to the London borough elections, which are due in May. We have now heard various suggestions that members of the National and Local Government Officers Association may take action on election day. I imagine that the most likely action would be a refusal to act as counting officers, but other forms of action may be proposed. What effect will such action have on these elections? This is a matter of enormous importance for London and it has a crucial bearing on the Bill. I should be grateful if the hon. Lady could help us and say what contingency plans, if any, her Department has prepared. If there is any possibility of difficulty or delay, it should be stated right away.
My second question concerns the make-up of the Home Office Electoral Advisory Committee, which advises the Government on the limits in the Bill. I think that it was the right hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan) who as Home Secretary said that he was surrounded by so many advisory committees that he felt he had to ask permission before blowing his nose. The

right hon. Gentleman's general statement is correct. The Home Secretary has committees to advise him on virtually every aspect of policy, from penal policy to drug dependence. Here we have another committee—the Home Office Electoral Advisory Committee. It would be for the convenience of the House if the hon. Lady would set out the membership of the committee, particularly as there are local government representatives on that committee and since 1st April the local government structure has radically altered.
My third and last question is rather detailed, and I shall understand if the hon. Lady requires time to consider it. However, it is important that this issue should be placed on record. As we have seen, the limits on expenses have been raised, but the formula on which they are calculated as relating to candidates remains the same, namely, that if two candidates in an electoral area stand jointly, the maximum election expenses allotted for each must be reduced by a quarter. This formula can lead to anomalies, and an illustrataion of one anomaly has been given to me.
Let us take as an example two towns, both with electorates of 20,000. In the first town two councillors are elected jointly, with every elector entitled to vote; in the second town two wards are created, each of 10,000 electors. Let us assume that the old figures of expenses apply, but that the formula in connection with candidates remains the same. Under this formula in the first town each candidate may spend £147·50. In the second town, each candidate may spend only £113. The maximum possible expenditure in town one is £295 and in town two the maximum is only £226. Yet town two is the town in which there are the most expenses, since the parties there need two separate election addresses, two sets of posters, and two sets of car stickers. Therefore, on the face of it, this would seem to provide exactly the reverse of what should be intended. The hon. Lady may need time to consider this detailed question, but it is important and I hope that she will undertake to examine the position.
I have asked three detailed questions about the Bill, but we support the increases in expenses and will support the measure.

8.6 p.m.

Dr. Summerskill: By leave of the House, I should like to thank the hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr. Fowler) for his support for the Bill.
He mentioned consultation. There was some urgency to bring in the Bill before the local elections, but I can assure the hon. Gentleman that we have the support of the local authority associations and the political parties in England and Wales. We have also had the views of the various political parties and the local authority associations in Scotland.
The other matters raised by the hon. Gentleman were wide-ranging and involved many important and complex issues. I assure him that I have taken careful note of his comments and questions, and I undertake to let him have a reply on all of them.

Mr. Fowler: Has the hon. Lady anything further to say about the London borough elections and the likely effect of the action which has been suggested in a number of places?

Dr. Summerskill: I could give an opinion about what has happened, but it would be wrong to hazard guesses and opinions. I shall let the hon. Gentleman have the answers to his questions.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time.

Bill committd to a Committee of the whole House.—[Mr. Ernest G. Perry.]

Bill immediately considered in Committee; reported, without amendment.

Motion made, and Question, That the Bill be now read the Third time, put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 56 (Third Reading), and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed.

Orders of the Day — EXPENDITURE COMMITTEE

The Committee was nominated of Mr. Michael Alison, Mr. James Allason, Sir Frederic Bennett, Mr. Arthur Blenkinsop, Mr. James Boyden, Mr. John Bruce-Gardyne, Mr. John Cope, Mr. Albert Costain, Major-General d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Mr. A. E. P. Duffy, Mr. Maurice Edelman, Sir John Eden, Mr. John Ellis, Mr. Michael English, Mr. Reginald Eyre, Mr. Geoffrey Finsberg, Miss Janet Fookes, Mr. Ted Garrett, Mr. Anthony Grant, Mr. W.

W. Hamilton, Colonel Sir Harwood Harrison, Mr. Frank Hooley, Mr. Mark Hughes, Mr. Robert Maxwell-Hyslop, Mr. Gwynoro Jones, Mr. Nigel Lawson, Mr. Arthur Lewis, Mr. John Loveridge, Mr. Frank McElhone, Mr. Robert McCrindle, Mr. Max Madden, Mr. Kenneth Marks, Dr. Edmund Marshall, Mr. Neil Marten, Dr. M. Miller, Mr. Charles Morrison, Mr. Chris Price, Mr. Peter Rees, Miss Jo Richardson, Mr. Nicholas Ridley, Mr. John Roper, Mr. Timothy Sainsbury, Mr. Brian Sedgemore, Mrs. Renée Short, Mr. Julius Silverman, Mr. Neville Trotter, Mr. Richard Wainwright, Mr. Hamish Watt and Mr. Phillip Whitehead.

Ordered,

That the members of the Expenditure Committee nominated this day shall continue to be Members of the Committee for the remainder of this Parliament.

Ordered,

That this Order be a Standing Order of the House.

Ordered,

That the Minutes of Evidence taken before the several Sub-Committees in the last Session of the last Parliament be referred to the Committee.—[Mr. Walter Harrison.]

PETITION

Northwood (Compulsory Purchase Orders)

Mr. F. P. Crowder: I beg leave to ask to present a petition on behalf of 2,071 of my constituents. It reads:
To the Honourable the Commons of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland in Parliament assembled. The Humble Petition of the residents of Northwood in the County of Middlesex
Sheweth that the large number of Compulsory Purchase Orders which have been served or which are threatened on people who live in Northwood have caused great distress and very strong feeling locally because of the real fear of losing their homes; these Compulsory Purchase Orders if confirmed and implemented would destroy the environment and the whole character of the district.
Wherefore your Petitioners pray that these Compulsory Purchase Orders and the advice of the Inspector appointed by the Minister be considered long and carefully before being confirmed
And your Petitioners, as in duty bound. will ever pray.

To lie upon the Table.

ADJOURNMENT

Motion made, and Question proposed. That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Ernest G. Perry.]

HOPWAS HAYES WOOD

8.11 p.m.

Major-General Jack d'AvigdorGoldsmid: I am grateful to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for allowing me time to speak on behalf of the preservation of Hopwas Hayes Wood and to make an attempt to prevent this famous beauty spot from being desecrated and turned into sand and gravel workings.
The village of Hopwas, with a population of about 600, lies in a rural area on the busy lateral A51 road which runs between Lichfield and Tamworth. The wood itself, on its southern edge, backs on to houses and the church on the northern side of the road and lies on Hopwas Hill. In shape it is roughly rectangular. In size it is about 1,000 yards east to west and about a mile north to south. It straddles Hopwas Hill which rises to a height of over 350 feet and forms a landmark which can be seen for miles around. It has immense landscape value.
The trees in the wood vary from fir to pine, oak, chestnut, alder, willow and silver birch. The wood is famed among ornithologists for the large variety of birds which nest there in the springtime. It is also known as a resting place for migratory birds during the migration seasons.
The wood itself has a bridle path running through it. It has tracks and rides and for many years has been a popular resort for walkers and ramblers who use the area to get a little fresh air and exercise. The people in the area exercise themselves, their children and their dogs. It is very popular with riders.
Part of the wood is in the danger area of the grenade and rifle ranges belonging to Whittington Barracks, the home of the Mercian depot of the Prince of Wales Regiment. When the ranges are being used, the wood has to be closed. But the times and days of firing are published in the local Press, and suitable arrangements have been made with the military authorities to ensure that the bridle path is open each weekend on at least one day, if not on both. Within five miles of the wood there are no fewer than four other sand and gravel workings.
Tamworth lies two miles to the southeast of the wood. It is a town with a population of more than 40,000. The number is growing rapidly because the town has been chosen as one of those to accept overspill from the Birmingham conurbation.
Everyone will realise and appreciate the necessity to retain places in the country close to industrialised and urban areas where those who are so inclined may go to take exercise in pleasant surroundings.
Hopwas Hayes Wood forms a country park and it has for that reason great attractions. A study of a one-inch Ordnance Survey map reveals remarkably few marks in green denoting woods, except perhaps for Cannock Chase which lies some 10 miles to the north-west.
The history of the events which have led up to the present situation is as follows. In 1965, an area of 190 acres of the wood was purchased by the Birmingham Sand and Gravel Company. Three years later the Staffordshire County Council produced its Sand and Gravel Review showing its requirements for workings for the period 1968–1981. Hopwas Hayes Wood was not included on that list.
Discussions followed between the company and the county council. The company said that within that period it wished to start work. As a result of those conversations the county council resolved
… that the County Council cannot at this stage, for technical reasons, allocate the land at Hopwas. The County Council, however, would have no objection in principle to the working of either the site or part of the site (as may be agreed at that time) although any planning application would have to be considered on its merits at the time it is made.
There followed at the end of 1968 a public inquiry, and five years later, in 1973, the Secretary of State published his proposed modifications to the Sand and Gravel Review. Modification No. 17 applied to Hopwas Hayes Wood and said:
… in addition to the principal areas allocated above, the County Council have no objection in principle to working at the following sites. In each case planning applications for the working will be refused or granted on the planning merits prevailing at the time.
Those proposals were reported to the Staffordshire County Council in October 1973 and advertised in the local Press


in December of that year, whereupon there were objections from the then Tamworth Borough Council, the then Lichfield Rural District Council, the Hopwas Parish Council, the Council for the Protection of Rural England and the Tamworth Society. In addition there was a petition from at least 200 local inhabitants.
I cannot believe that any official initially making a decision that the area could be converted to sand and gravel workings can ever have seen this site. I was there on Saturday and walked round it. It would give me enormous pleasure to take the Minister there if he would care to see it for himself.
Last year, 1973, was Plant a Tree Year. Surely it must be wrong one year later to condone the destruction of trees, many of them centuries old.

Mr. Ernest G. Perry: This is chop them down year.

Major-General d'Avigdor-Goldsmid: I hope not. Apart from the wanton damage to trees, hill and landscape and the deprivation of amenities and pleasure for a number of people, any operation of sand and gravel working in the area on whatever scale would be bound to cause distress to local inhabitants in terms of desecration, dust, dirt and noise. Of course, this adds enormously to the traffic burden in the area, which is already bad, and, in Tamworth, almost intolerable because of the lack of a by-pass.
I fully appreciate that no action can be taken unless planning permission is given, but, on behalf of my constituents, I ask the Minister whether some modification can be made to Modification No. 17 and whether he will be willing to follow the example originally set by Staffordshire County Council and to remove Hopwas Hayes Wood from the list of possible sand and gravel working sites.

8.21 p.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Gordon Oakes): I thank the hon. and gallant Member for Lichfield and Tamworth (Major-General d'Avigdor-Goldsmid) for raising this matter. I know that it is a subject very dear to his heart, because in the last Parliament he was about to raise it when events overtook him with the General

Election, so at the first available opportunity he has raised it in this Parliament.
This debate is essentially about an objection to a proposed modification to the Staffordshire County Development Plan which was established under the Town and Country Planning Act 1962. The modification resulted from an objection to the submitted plan. The plan, the modification and the objection are still before my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for determination.
As the hon. and gallant Gentleman said, Hopwas Hayes Wood is an area of mature private woodlands, abounding with wild life, approximately one mile in area, close to Tamworth. I will certainly, if the opportunity ever presents itself, take up his offer to show me the wood and the beauties of this area, which he so eloquently described, when I am next in Staffordshire. Twice a week I travel through his constituency, much of which is very beautiful. I do so, I regret to say, in a train at 100 miles an hour, but I get the opportunity of looking through the window at the lovely countryside that he is privileged to represent. This is a matter in which I have an interest because I pass through the area.

Major-General d'Avigdor-Goldsmid: From the train window the hon. Gentleman can see the hill and the wood.

Mr. Oakes: Indeed, I looked for it this morning, but I could not distinguish which wood it was amongst the many woods and hilltops there. However, I assure the hon. and gallant Gentleman that I peered out of the window to try to distinguish this particular wood.
Two bridle paths and some footpaths run through the wood, though not, as I will explain later, through the part subject to debate. The wood is located on a geological formation called the Bunter Pebble Beds which is the most important of the three sources of sand and gravel in the West Midlands, the others being river and glacial deposits. The major part of the Bunter Pebble Beds in the West Midlands occurs in Staffordshire where working is concentrated in three areas; namely, between Stoke and Cheadle, Cannock Chase, and between Birmingham, Lichfield and Tamworth. Hopwas Hayes Wood is situated in this last-mentioned area.
As I am sure the hon. and gallant Gentleman is aware, Staffordshire is much the largest gravel producer in the West Midlands, supplying material to meet the growing demand for building aggregates not only within this region, but to other regions, notably the North-West. Unfortunately, much of the Bunter outcrop stands high and is covered with woodland and this, not surprisingly, heightens the conflict of interest between landscape conservationists, on the one hand, and gravel extraction, on the other.
Because of the circumstances I have just described, the selection of locations for gravel workings, their after-treatment and the balancing of supply, demand and landscape interests have been one of the major elements of concern in Staffordshire's development plans and led to the county review of this element of its 1962 Act county plan. This review was published and submitted for consideration by the then Minister for Housing and Local Government on 14th March 1968.
A public inquiry into objections to the review plan was held in November-December 1968. As the hon. and gallant Gentleman said, one of the objections was by the Birmingham Sand and Gravel Company on the grounds that land at Hopwas Hayes Wood had not been allocated for gravel extraction. There were, at that time, no corresponding amenity objections, but I presume that was because the significance of the company's objection was not fully appreciated at that time in the neighbourhood.
The objection site does not cover the whole area of the wood, only the southern part, and, though bounded by the two public bridleways I mentioned earlier, no public footpath crosses it. At the time of the public inquiry, the company did not anticipate wanting to work the site for a number of years as its existing quarry at Common Barn, Hints, which is situated one mile south-west of Hopwas, had a life of 10 to 12 years.
The county council, in evidence at the inquiry, stated that it was unable to allocate this site and other similar sites because, until technical details had been gone into, it could not define boundaries precisely. Instead, it suggested that the review written statement could be amended by an insertion to the effect that

the workings were acceptable in principal. The company was willing to settle for this, and the inspector has recommended in his report that the written statement should be modified accordingly.
Since the public inquiry, there have been discussions and consultations aimed at modifying the proposals in the submitted review plan. To meet the objections lodged and changing circumstances, a list of proposed modifications was published on 7th and 14th December 1973 together with extracts from the inspector's report. As the hon. and gallant Gentleman said, the list included a modification —No. 17—requested by the Staffordshire County Council to indicate its agreement in principle to working at certain sites which, for technical reasons, could not be precisely defined. The essence of the modification is that permission to work these sites would be refused or granted on the planning merits prevailing at the time of application. The schedule of undefined sites included the area of Hopwas Hayes Wood.
To date, 12 objections, including two petitions, to the proposed modifications have been received by the Department. Ten of these and the petitions, signed by 117 Hopwas residents and 312 Tamworth schoolchildren, are concerned with Hopwas Hayes Wood.
I am glad to see that the children in Tamworth, when they feel that their local environment is threatened—leaving aside whether their fears are justified—are prepared to try to do something about it. This augurs well for the quality of life in Staffordshire. It is a trend that I find in my constituency, and in the country as a whole—that young people are greatly concerned with the preservation of their environment—and I wish them all the luck in the world when they take action, such as the Tamworth schoolchildren have taken, presenting petitions or, in some cases, appearing at public inquiries. It is their future, the future of the areas in which they live and their future life which are affected, and they above any of us should have a voice in the future environment.
Among the objections my Department has received is one from the Nature Conservancy Council, which feels that the wild life interest of Hopwas Hayes Wood is considerable and the ornithological and


entomological interests are of exceptional local importance. I can well understand the fears of objectors in this complicated procedural process, but I should like to stress that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has not yet reached a decision on the submitted plan, its modification, or on the objections submitted. He is still considering all the proposed modifications which spring from the public inquiry into the submitted plan and the objections to these modifications.
I can assure the House that in this he is not only conscious of the need to keep in view the building aggregate demand and supply position in the West Midlands and adjacent regions but, in this particular case, also to give full weight to the amenity value of Hopwas Hayes Wood to the people of Hopwas and of the town of Tamworth, which, as a result of agreements with Birmingham under the Town Development Act, is growing fast.
It may well be that the objectors to the modification proposals are under the impression that gravel workings in the whole of the 190-acre site, which were the subject of the original objection by the Birmingham Sand and Gravel Company, are imminent. For the reasons I have already given, this cannot be. However, even if—and this decision has by no means been reached at this stage—my

right hon. Friend the Secretary of State were to approve the proposed modification to the review plan, their fears should be allayed.
First, the gravel in this areas is unlikely to be needed for a number of years ; secondly, the modifications to the plan now under consideration merely define it as an area within which the Staffordshire County Council is prepared, in principle, to consider gravel working ; and thirdly, if a gravel working application is eventually submitted, it will be considered in the light of the planning merits of the particular case and any other material considerations prevailing at that time and, in particular, its detailed effects on its locality.
However, because of all the objections to the proposed modifications and the interest shown in this matter by the hon. and gallant Gentleman, and his proper persistence on behalf of his constituents and the amenities of the area, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State now considers that it will be necessary to hold a further public inquiry. This will be held on 25th June 1974 and all interested parties, including the hon. and gallant Gentleman, will be notified.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at twenty-eight minutes to Nine o'clock.